Find a Lawyer

Appeal No.RI-50 of 1978, decided on 8th March, 1982.

---S.34--Closure of factory having already been allowed, industrial dispute dismissed by Labour Court as infructuous--Tribunal remanded case for decision on merits because in case factory reopens, it would be necessary to recall employees--Dispute cannot be said to have become infructuous.

Ch. Ghulam Qadir Cheema for Appellant.

Naeem Bokhari for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 16th February, 1982.

This appeal arises from the decision dated 26-12-1977 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.1, Lahore, whereby the industrial dispute raised by the appellant Union was dis missed.

2. The ground on which the learned lower Court dismissed the industrial dispute is that the petition of the respondent brought under Standing Order 11-A of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 for the closure of the whole establish ment had already been accepted and thus the industrial dispute had become infructuous. Regarding demand No.1 the lower court observed that it related to the reinstatement of the workers in service and since it was an individual grievance of the retrenched workers, they were competent to file petitions under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and no industrial dispute could be raised in the matter. Regarding remaining demands he observed that they related to the creation of the rights of the workers in future and as the establishment had already been closed, the dispute had become infructuous. The grounds given by the lower Court for dismissing the industrial dispute are not cogent. Obviously, the employees, for the reinstatement of whom, demand No. l was raised were terminated before the factory was closed' down. The Union, therefore, could raise the demand for their reinstatement. No doubt, some of those employees may have made their individual applications for reinstatement but for the ones who did not move the Labour Court the union can raise the demand.

3. On merits the point may have been decided but the reason given that they brought individual applications was not sufficient unless it had been shown that all of them had made separate applications. So demand No.1 needs consideration. Remaining demands are yet to be adjudicated upon because if the factory is re-opened, it would be necessary to recall the employees. There is no evidence no doubt at present whether the factory has been re-opened, but if it is so, the, industrial dispute cannot be said to have become infructuous. The lower Court, therefore, should have decided every demand on merits. I, therefore, accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned decision of the lower Court, remand the case with the direction that the industrial dispute be decided on merits. However, if it is shown to the Labour Court that the factory has not resumed its business and is not existing the lower Court will be competent to dismiss the industrial dispute.

M.I.

Case remanded.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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