Find a Lawyer

C.D.A. MAZDOOR UNION THROUGH GENERAL SECRETARY versus MEMBER (ADMINISTRATION) C.D.A. COMPLEX, ISLAMABAD

Sections 49 (4) (e), 20 (13) (a) and (b), 35 and 59 of the unfair labor practice Petitioner's Union, which was a collecting bargaining agent in the Establishment, provided for section 49 (4) (e). Was filed under. The Industrial Relations Ordinance 2002, on the basis that the Establishment had allocated funds for house building and motorcycle advance, in response to a demand raised by the Employees Federation, which was not a collective bargaining agent, said. This process of establishment was unfair labor. In the context of section 59 (1) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 2002, the applicant claimed that an industrial dispute was to be filed to establish a collective bargaining with the establishment given in section 20 (13) (a) of the Industrial Relations. The spirit and legitimacy of the ordinance, 2002, was that it was the right of the bargaining agent to support the cause of the workers and to represent the workers or a group of workers. If the Establishment neglects a collective bargaining agent in any action, it will be subject to the role of the representative of the Collective Bargaining Agent in collective matters relating to the interests of the workers. It would be the basis of an industrial dispute that was required by law to enter into a contract with the Establishment. No bargaining agent and no other union If the establishment conducts a collective activity for the interests of workers who are not representative of the union, then this case would not be appropriate, as in the circumstances of section 49 (4) (e) Had formally requested jurisdiction. ), Section 59 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 2002 famous supreme court advocate from Dunyapur lawyer