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.
Constitutional Petition No. 50 of 1974, decided on 12th December 1974.
‑‑ S. 5‑Industrial dispute‑Dispute relating to establishment of a workers' participation fund‑An industrial dispute‑Workers' Union entitled to seek remedy either by way of adjudication and/or enforce ment by Labour Court.
‑‑ S. 32(1‑A)‑Subsection (1‑A) refers to period subsequent to expiry of notice of strike period, but before actual commencement of strike, and at any time thereafter during continuance of strike ‑ Application under S. 32(1‑A)‑Cannot be made during pendency of conciliation proceedings.
The words of subsection (1‑A) of section 32 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 have to be read in the context of the preceding sections com mencing from the raising of the dispute under section 26. The law quite clearly visualises; firstly bilateral negotiations; secondly, conciliation proceed ings through Conciliator, thirdly, an attempt at arbitration and thereafter the liberty to go on strike on the expiry of the strike notice. If it was the intention of the Legislature to give a party liberty of moving an application under sub section (1‑A) of section 32 at any time of the choosing of the party it was not necessary either to add subsection (1‑A) to section 32 or confine this right to "party raising the dispute" or to add restrictive words "either before or after the commencement of a strike".
The dispute has to be raised in a particular manner, it is the party raising the dispute who can move an application .under this subsection either before going on strike or during its continuance. Sub section (1‑A) of section 32, therefore, refers to the period after the expiry of the notice of strike period but before the actual commencement of the strike and at any time thereafter while the strike continues. So understood there would be no occasion to make an application under section 32(t‑A) during the pendency of a conciliation proceedings.
Ali Amjad‑for Petitioner.
A. A. Fazeel.for Respondent No. 1.
Nemo for Respondent No. 2.
Date of hearing: 3rd December 1974.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer