Labour Law Cases - Review of Recent Courts' Judgments


1. Sindh Industrial Relations Act (XXIX of 2013)---

Ss, 34 and 48--Termination of service---Grievance application

S.O.12--lndustrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ord.1968

Two employees terminated on the same day had different facts and circumstances therefore reinstatement of one judgment is not applicable to the other after a 10 year delay.

Employee, a junior clerk, was terminated, and she on receiving one month pay in lieu of notice severed her relations with the employer corporation. Employee after about 10 years of her removal from service, filed grievance application before Labour Court, without filing application or showing any cause for condonation of the delay, in filing grievance application. Employee, had contended that an other employee, whose service was terminated on the same day by a separate, but similar order, having been directed by Labour Court to be reinstated, benefit of Labour Court judgment of that other employee should be given to her as well-Validity. Said other employee who was reinstated, was ten years senior in service to the employee and her rank was also higher. Order of the Labour Court was not "judgment in rem", as it had neither decided any question of law, nor its decision was binding.

Facts of the two cases being quite different, the ratio of case of other employee, could not be applied to case of employee. LAT(Sindh): Mrs. Farhana vs. Sindh Small Industries Corporation through Managing Director and 2 others; 2016 PLC 42].

  1. Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance (X of 1965)---

    Ss. 20, 23, 24, 28 and 46--Increase of unpaid and recovery of contributions etc. R. 5--Provincial Employees Social Security (Contribution) Rules, 1966

    Regln.3--Prov. Emp Social Security (Employers' Returns and Records) Reg.,1967

    Employer-petitioner to make contributions in the local office where he was registered not in numerous local areas where he carried on various projects.

    Respondent-Institution, by way of letter, required petitioner to deposit contributions at its "local office" in its locality, where he carried on his projects of construction work. Question in the present case was as to whether petitioner was to make contributions in local area where he carried on his project or at local office where he was registered. Petitioner contended that he carried on construction work in various parts of the Province. Impugned letters had clarified that all establishments would pay contributions in respect of their existing and ongoing projects at Sub-Office concerned within territorial jurisdiction, where such works, projects or activities were being carried out.

    Said letters further provided that the concerned office and such establishment were required to get their employees registered with concerned Directorate or Sub-Office, so that their employees could be benefitted from nearby Directorate as their entitlement under the rules. Section 24 of Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965 provided that, in event of default in payment of contributions towards secured person by employer, the secured person was entitled to all benefits as if the default had not occurred. Secured person would be entitled to the benefits provided under Chapter V of Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965 and amounts, liable to be collected from employer, could be collected in terms of S.23 of Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965 as arrears of land revenue.

    Respondent-Institution, therefore, could not deny secured person the benefits that he was entitled to on pretext that contribution had not been paid. Understanding of respondent that contribution should have been made locally and that the petitioner should have registered its employees locally where he was carrying on his work was, therefore, totally misconceived. Mandate of law in question, was that all contributions were centralized and paid towards the Fund, from which, all amounts were disbursed and paid out to all secured persons entitled under the 1965 Ordinance. Respondent-Institution was required to set up its own verification mechanism to ensure that the employer registered all persons and paid required contribution for all secured persons. Under S.46 of Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965, no reason existed to deny statutory benefit to the secured persons on ground that contribution was not made locally.

    Respondent-Institution was required under 1965 Ordinance to provide requisite benefits to secured persons from the Fund and not to treat a contribution as a local payment for provision of benefits. High Court, setting aside the impugned letters, held that term 'local office', used in Regln.3 of Provincial Employees' Social Security (Employers' Returns and Records) Regulations, 1967, would be read as 'local office of the Institution at which it is registered. Constitutional petition was accepted in circumstances. [HC(Lhr): Izhar Construction (Pvt) Ltd., through General Manager vs. Government of Punjab through Secretary and 6 others; 2016 PLC 44].

  2. Sindh Industrial Relations Act (XXIX of 2013)---

    Ss. 34 and 48--Resignation without giving one month's prior notice

    S.2(i) and S.O.15(4)--Ind. and Comm. Employment (Standing Orders) Ord.1968

    Art. 11--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973


To continue reading