Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. KAR‑109 of 1983, heard on 14th February, 1985.

‑‑ S. 32 (1‑A)‑Industrial dispute‑Deciding demands on merits -Workers Union admitting losses suffered by employer‑Proceedings under S. O. 11‑A of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 already decided ' by Labour Court in favour of employer‑Counsel of Union conceding that there was no use in pursuing application under S. 32(1‑A) Decision of 'demands on merits, in circumstances, held, out of question and order of Labour Court dismissing application upheld by Appellate Tribunal.

1975 P L C 878 distinguished.

A. M. T. D' Cruz for Appellant.

Mushtaq Ahmed Shaikh for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 14th February, 1985.

This is an appeal against the order, dated 26th February, 1983 passed by the Sind Labour Court No. V, whereby he has dismissed the application which was made under section 32(1‑A), I. R. O., 1969.

2. The facts are that an application under section 32(1‑A), I. R. O., 1969, was made by the appellant‑Union (Union Cold Storage Company Workers Union) in which the appellant‑Union had prayed to adjudicate upon the industrial dispute, demands mentioned in Notice, dated 28th May, 1981 and the statement of claims. The Union further prayed for an award. The reply statement was filed by the respondents i.e. Union Cold Storage Company Limited. The case proceeded and the affidavit was filed by Qalander Khan, General Secretary of the appellant Union and he was cross‑examined. Similarly, one Iqbal H. Rehmatullah filed affidavit in evidence on behalf of the respondent Management and he was likewise cross‑examined. The arguments of the Advocates were heard.

3. Mr. D'Cruz pleaded that the application was not decided on merits and a reference is made to 1975 P L C 878. The authority quoted by him at page 880 says that the Labour Court must examine each demand on merits. In nutshell, it is emphasized that the demand ought to be decided on merits of the case. In this particular case circumstances are quite different. The respondent establishment filed a Case No. 104/82, under Standing Orders 11‑A of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 and which was granted and allowed in favour of the respondents, namely, Union Cold Storage Company Limited. The case in Labour Court, there fore, was dismissed. In the Labour Court, it was conceded by the learned Advocate of the appellant‑Union that it would not be proper for the appellant‑Union to further pursue the demands. The witness of the appellant‑Union has also admitted in this cross‑examination that the respondent establishment have suffered losses and many of the workers have left the job and most of the sections of the respondent establishment are closed on account of losses. The cross‑examination of the witness is as under: ‑

"It is correct to suggest that company has loss profits for last years in comparison to previous years."

This is the version of the witness of the appellant‑Union.

4. Since the proceedings under Order 11‑A were decided prior to the, present application and since the Advocate for the appellant Union conceded that there would be no use to pursue the present application. therefore, deciding on merits is out of question. The Company itself had suffered loss and many workers had left the jobs. I find no force in this appeal. Therefore, it is dismissed accordingly.

A. E.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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