Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. LHR-785 of 1979/pb., decided on 20^th July, 1982.

---S.47 Factories Act (XXV of 1934), S.34 Increase in working hours during pendency of industrial dispute disallowed---Permission from Conciliator and justification for increase necessary.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 26^th June 1982.

This appeal arises from the decision dated 30-10-1979 passed by the learned presiding Officer Punjab Lahore, Court No.1, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition brought by the respondent union under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was accepted and the working hours were restored to six hours per day and 34 hours in a week.

---S.47--Factories Act (XXV of 1934), S. 34----- Increase in working hours during pendency of industrial dispute disallowed-- permission from Conciliator and justification for increase necessary.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 26^th June, 1982.

This appeal arises from the decision dated 30-10-1979 passed by the learned Presiding, Officer, Punjab Lahore Court No.1 Lahore, Whereby the grievance petition brought, by the respondent union under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was accepted and the working hours were restord to six hours per day and 34 hours in a week.

2. Previously the employees of G. T. S. Saddar Depot Were performing duties of six hours per day but on 9-11-1978, the working hours were increased by two hours a day: The said, order was challenged in the grievance petition on the grounds that, during, the pendency of the industrial dispute, no change could be effected in the conditions of service without taking permission under section 47 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. In the written statement the pendency of the industrial dispute before the conciliator was accepted But it was contended that the employer was competent to increase the working, hours upto a limit, prescribed in section 34 of the Factors Since the fact of the pendency of the industrial dispute is admitted, the increase in the working hours was in direct violation of section 47, With out taking permission from the conciliator before whom the, dispute, is pending no change in the service conditions could be brought about. The, quantum of working period comes within the terms and conditions of service which therefore, could not be changed cutting, the pendency of the industrial dispute without permission. Even otherwise without cogent reasons working hours could not be increased. The mere fact that according to section 34, of the Factories Act, work can be taken from the employees for not more than , eight hours is not sufficient increase the existent working hours If some reasons had been given and they had been found as cogent, there, could be scope to say that there was justification in the increase of the working hours the long standing practice' of taking duty for six hours could not be increased by an overnight, change 'without any reason. Just in the manner the workers are bound to work for six hours daily and not less than that in the same manner the employer is bound to take duty from the employees for, six hours and not be than that They learned lower court therefore was justified in accepting the grievance petition of the respondents and restoring the duty hours to six hours daily, and 34 hours per week there is no force in the appeal which is dismissed.

M. I.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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