Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Petition No. 1 of 1971. decided on 3rd August 1971.
Ss. 34 & 47‑Petition under S. 34 seeking adjudication of validity of agree ment ‑Not an industrial dispute Permission for dismissal due to misconduct under S 47, pending such petition under S. 34, held, not required.
Abdul Hamid v. Brooke Bond Ltd. Petition No. 120 of 1971 rel.
This order shall dispose of Petition No. 1/71 In Re: Paintex Linited v. Muhammad Azim, Petition No. 2/71 In Re: Paintex Limited v. Munsif Khan and Petition No. 3/71 In Re: Paintex Limited v. Mukhtar Ahmad as common question of facts and law arise in them.
The petitioners have filed these Petitions under section 47 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance of 1969 for permission of this Court to dismiss the respondents on the ground of misconduct. The permission is sought because Petition No. 52/70 filed under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance by Paintex Limited against the union for adjudication if certain agreement arrived at between the parties was a valid agreement or not The petitioner is doubtful whether the petition under section 34 mentioned above can be said to be a pending industrial dispute. He moved applications under section 47 of the I. R. O. for per mission to dismiss the respondents as a matter of abundant caution that if the said petition under section 34 of the I. R. O. is hold to be a pending industrial dispute, then permission would be necessary.
We have held in Petition No. 120/71, Abdul Hamid v. Brooke Bond Ltd., decided by us on 14‑6‑1971 that a petition under sec tion 34 of I. R. O. is not an industrial dispute. For the reasons stated in the above decision, the petition filed by the Paintex Ltd. under section 34 of the I. R. O. cannot be said to be a pending industrial dispute. A perusal of the provisions of section 47 of the I. R. O. shows that permission of the Labour Court to dismiss on the ground of misconduct is required only in case a industrial dispute pertaining to the matter is pending in the Court. As no industrial dispute is pending in this Court, so the petitions under section 47 of the I. R. O. are not maintainable.
The result is that we would dismiss these petitions as not maintainable. Costs on the parties.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer