Labour Law Cases - Review of Recent Courts' Judgments

 
FREE EXCERPT

1(a) Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936)--

S. 17-- Appeal before depositing the amount ordered.

Order to deposit amount of pay delayed or deducted must be complied before any constitutional appeal can be filed.

Direction to deposit the amount as ordered by the Labour Court was mandatory requirement of proviso to S.17(i)(a) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. Without compliance of the said provision the constitutional appeals from the orders passed under S. 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 were not maintainable. When a thing was to be done in particular manner, that must be done in that way and not otherwise. [HC(Sindh): Duty Free Shops Limited vs. Ishaq Rasheed and 2 others; 2013 PLC 302]

(b) Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936)---

S. 17--- Deposit of amount

Art.199---Constitutional petition

Purpose of Constitutional appeal under Art. 199 is not to nullify the provision of

S. 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936.

Intention of the Legislature in enacting S.17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 was that the amount covered by an order, under S.15 was to be deposited it the Labour Court before entertaining all appeal against such at order. Purpose of Art. 199 of the Constitution was not to nullify till effect of a legislative provision or to make ineffective a statutory provision. [HC(Sindh): Duty Free Shops Limited vs. Ishaq Rasheed and 2 others; 2013 PLC 302]

(c) Industrial Relations Act (IV of 2008)-- S. 55--

Art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction--Scope

Constitutional jurisdiction could not be invoked in presence of adequate remedy available to the petitioner.

Order passed by Labour Court was appealable before the Labour Appellate Tribunal which remedy was not availed by the petitioner. Constitutional jurisdiction could be invoked only it exceptional circumstances and could not be invoked in presence of adequate remedy available to the petitioner. [HC(Sindh): Duty Free Shops Limited vs. Ishaq Rasheed and 2 others; 2013 PLC 302].

2(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)---

S. 25-A---Grievance petition/grievance notice--Dismissal from service

Any communication to employer of grievance with workman name written in Urdu under the direction of his counsel would be a valid grievance notice.

Grievance notice served to employer had not been signed by workman himself. Workman had written his name in Urdu on the notice under the direction of his counsel--Validity. Name of the workman appeared quite at the place where signature of an applicant was required to be put on. Notice, in circumstances, could not be said to have not been signed by the workman himself as the requirement of S.25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 had been fully complied with. [HC (Peshawar): Executive Director C.F.O., Mardan vs. Muhammad Ilyas Khan and others; 2013 PLC 326].

2(b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)---

S. 25-A--Grievance petition--Re-instatement---Back-benefits

Workman has to assert that he remained out of job after dismissal in order to claim back-benefits upon reinstatement.

Labour Court re-instated the workman along with back benefits. Petitioner had not placed any evidence on record that during the intervening period he was not doing any other job. Petitioner workman was obliged have to shown that during the intervening period of his dismissal from service and reinstatement, he remained jobless, otherwise petitioner could not competently claim back-benefits and he would only be entitled to receive the same from the date of order of re-instatement passed by the Labour Court. Appeal was partially allowed. Judgment of the Labour Court was modified accordingly. Workman was granted back-benefits from the date of the judgment of Labour Court. [HC (Pesh): Executive Director C.F.O., Mardan vs. Muhammad Ilyas Khan and others; 2013 PLC 326]

3. Industrial Relations Act (IV of 2008)---

Ss. 2(xxv), 25(13)(a), 56(1)(d) and 69---Settlement of industrial dispute

Art.199---Constitutional petition--Constitution of Pakistan

Payment to sons of retired workers in lieu of giving them employment, is a question of fact which cannot be agitated in the Constitutional jurisdiction.

Fathers of petitioners were recruited by dockyard as dock workers, who retired from service without getting their sons (petitioners) employed on dockyard in their place. Grievance of petitioners was that under the settlement as no sons were got employed at dock, therefore, authorities had to pay agreed amount to their fathers, in lieu thereof--Validity. Settlement was agreement between all workmen (who were represented by CBA in terms of S. 25(13)(a) of Industrial

Relations Act, 2008) on one hand and employer on the other hand. Statute had given protection to the settlement, so that though it was a private agreement but its enforcement had been provided through elaborate mechanism laid down in law. In private agreements between parties, under civil law remedy was normally suit for damages or specific performance in certain cases but case of settlement, which was also an agreement between the parties, Legislature had first made it binding not only on employer but also on heirs, successors, assignees of employer and workmen, not only present but also future workmen. Law also provided for penal consequences if a settlement was violated by any of the parties and mechanism had been provided under S.69 of Industrial Relations Act, 2008, for interpretation of a settlement if difficulty or doubt would arise. Subsequent settlement in year, 2000 in the present...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL