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.
BROOKE BOND (PAKISTAN)-LTD.-Appellant.
versus
LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, N: W. F. P., PESHAWAR AND 2 OTHERS--Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 28 of 1976, decided on 28th April 1976.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, Karachi, dated the 27th June 1973, in Constitutional Petition No. 92 of 1972).
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)-
S. 2 (xxviii)-"Workman"-Salesman appointed in Brooke Bond (Pakistan) Ltd.-A workman.
Brooke Bond (Pakistan) Ltd. v. The Conciliator (appointed by the Government of Sind) and 6 others P L D 1977 S C 237 ref.
M. Fazlur Rehman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ismail Tejani, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant.
Nemo for Respondents Nos. I and 2.
Noor Ahmad Noori, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No. 3.
Date of hearing : 28th April 1976.
MUHAMMAD AKRAM, J
.--Respondent No. 3 Union Karkonan-e-Brooke Bond (Pakistan) Ltd., Abbottabad is a registered Trade Union representing inter alia the "salesmen" in the service of the Brooke Bond (Pakistan) Limited, Karachi. The Union raised certain demands on behalf of the workers and issued a notice to the company enclosing therewith the charter of demands. But the said Management refused to enter upon any negotiation with the said Union on the plea that it was an illegally constituted body.
On 23-8-1971 the company filed an application under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 alleging that the salesmen employed by it were not "workman" within the definition of the term and therefore the Union, having salesmen as its members, was illegally constituted.
On the 7th of November, 1973, Labour Court (N: W. F. P.), Peshawar accepted the application of the appellant-Company holding that a "salesman" in the company was not a workman and that the respondent-Union was not a lawfully constituted body and the notices issued by it were invalid. The respondent-Union went up in appeal against the award. On the 21st of March, 1974, the Labour Appellate Tribunal (N: W. F. P.), Peshawar accepted their appeal and set aside the award made by the Labour Court. This gave rise to a writ petition filed by the company against the respondents before the Peshawar High Court challenging the validity of the order passed by the Labour Appellate Tribunal. But a Division Bench of that Court dismissed the writ petition on the 30th of July, 1975.
In these circumstances the company filed a petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court. This Court granted the leave to appeal to consider the question as to whether a salesman employed by the Company was a workman within the definition of section 2 (xxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance.
In C. A. K-14 of 1973, Brooke Bond (Pakistan) Ltd. v. The Conciliator (appointed by the Government of Sind) and 6 others (P L D 1977 S C 237) an identical question was raised. For our detailed reasons recorded in that appeal we have held that a salesman employed in the appellant-Company is a workman within the definition of the term. This appeal has no force and is, therefore, dismissed. But there is no order as to costs in the circumstances of this case.
S. A. H. Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer