Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

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.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

EMPLOYEES\' UNION versus PAKISTAN TOBACCO CO. LTD.


Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 Section 25A & 34 workers who claim to accept medical allowance payments where they were withheld by employer Remedy, section 34A under Workers' Complaint by workers complaint requests under Section 25A Can be prosecuted, retained as workers and unions are not affected by the employer's work

1983 P L C 1087

[Labour Appellate Tribunal

Punjab

]

Before Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal

EMPLOYEES'

UNION

versus

PAKISTAN TOBACCO Co. LTD.

Application No. JM‑26 of 1983, decided on 14th February, 1983.

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑--

‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 34‑Workers claiming admissibility of medical allowance payment whereof stopped by employer‑Remedy, held, could be sought by way of grievance petitions by workers under S. 25‑A‑Application by workers' union under S. 34, held, not maintainable as workers and not the union affected by act of employer.

Zafar Malik for Petitioner.

Date of hearing : 7th February, 1983.

ORDER

This revision emanates from the order dated 29th January, 1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 6, Rawalpindi, whereby the petition for temporary injunction was dismissed.

2. The facts are that the employees of the respondent whose pay is less than Rs. 1,000 are covered by the Social Security Ordinance and get free treatment from the social security dispensary and the respondent pays to the said Social Security 7% of wages of all the employees to whom Social Security Ordinance applies. The employees getting pay of Rs. 1,000 or more are not covered by the above‑mentioned Ordinance and the respondent pays them Rs. 84 per month as medical allowance. In view of a High Court judgment reported in N L R 1982 Labour 96 that the employees getting Rs. 1,000 or more, are covered by the Social Security Ordinance, the respondent company stopped paying them medical allowance. The C. B. A had brought application under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 challenging the order of the respondent and applied for injunction. Obviously the workers and not the union have been affected by the act of the respondent, so prima facie section 34 is not applicable. The workers who feel aggrieved by the act ,q of the respondent may have, after serving grievance notice, brought grievance petition under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordi nance, 1969. The petitioner union, therefore, cannot be said to have a prima facie case. The revision, therefore, is dismissed in limine.

A.E. Revision dismissed,

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
jobs for advocates from Jalozai lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.