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.
Appeal NO.GT-107 of 1982/Pb decided on 17th July, 1982.
---S. 25-A--Grievance petition returned by Labour Court as incompetent--Merely citation to a decision of High Court without discussing facts and grounds in support of view taken--High Court's decision found not applicable to facts of cases--Tribunal set aside order and 'remanded case to Labour Court for decision on merits.
1982 P L C 1 ref.
Malik Muhammad Asghar for Appellant.
Mian Muhammad Yasin for Respondents.
Date of hearing 12th July, 1982.
This appeal arises from the decision dated 28-1-1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Pun; lab Labour Court No.7, Gujranwala, whereby he relying upon 1M P L C I held that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction and this returned th a grievance petition to the appellant. The impugned order is not a speaking order, inasmuch as neither the facts of the case are given in it, nor any ground in support of the view taken by the learned lower court. In the authority cited above, the Wage Commission report had 1 been regarded as an Award of the N.I.R.C. under section 38-G of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1999 and it has been observed th at by virtue of section 22-B of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 19 19, the N.I.R.C. has jurisdiction to exercise same powers as are exercised by a Labour Court. The application from the decision of which the High Court authority arose was given under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance and not section 25-A of the Ordinance, therefore, it was held that the union could give application for the redress of its wrong and not to the workers. In the present case the grievance petition was made under section 28-A and not under section 34 by the workers himself and not by any C.B.A. Union, therefore, the petition was competent. This is note-worthy that section 22-B does not bar the jurisdiction of the Labour Courts, but has invested the N.I.R.C. with the same powers as are exercisable by the Labour Courts. Section 22-BIa) has given powers to the N. I. R. C. in matters of unfair labour practices only arising out of any right guaranteed or secured by any law, settlement or award, but not in other cases. The present case is not based upon any unfair labour practice, therefore, the N.I.R.C. has no jurisdiction. A perusal of clauses (a) and (b) of subsection (3) of section 22-B makes it quite clear that so far as clause (a) is concerned, only in respect of unfair labour practice the N.I.R.C. has been given powers to adjudicate upon the grievances arising oat of the unfair labour practices and not in respect of other matters. However, clause(b) authorises the N.I.R.C. to exercise the same powers that are exercisable by the Labour Courts or the Tribunal, but that is in respect of industry-wise trade union, federation of such trade unions, federation at the national level and the cases specially referred to the Commission. 'The present case does not fall either in clause (a) or (b) of subsection (3) of section 22-B. Therefore, the N.I.R.C. has no jurisdiction and only the Labour Court is competent to decide the case.
2. As a result of the observations made above. I accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower court, remand the case for decision on merits.
M. I.
Case remanded.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer