1. Industrial Relations Act (X of 2012)---
Ss. 53 and 55---Ad hoc allowance
Employees had undertaken ad hoc allowance received would be recovered/adjusted by employer from the upcoming CBA Agreement cannot turn around later on and challenged the Agreement for withdrawing the allowance.
Employees, were granted ad hoc allowance in 2010 at the rate of 50% of basic pay and in pursuance to that the Employer-Corporation issued circular letter for payment of said allowance to the officers as well as unionized staff, and since then they were getting said allowance. Later on in the year 2011-2012, a charter of demand was signed by the Corporation and Employees Federation, by which said ad hoc allowance was withdrawn by the employer. Terming the said act of employer as absolutely illegal, against the Constitution and based on mala fide, employees filed constitutional petition before High Court praying for restraining the employer from recovering already paid ad hoc allowance from the employees. Constitutional petition was dismissed by Single Judge of High Court--Validity. Ad hoc relief of 50% was extended to the employees conditionally as pre-payment of forthcoming Collective Bargaining Agent (CBA) agreement 2011-2012, which was also adjustable.
Undertaking was given by the employees to accept the decision taken in the meeting of the Board of Directors regarding ad hoc allowance payable to unionized staff at 50% of basic pay. Employees had undertaken that amount received by them would be recovered/adjusted from them from the final payment, payable in the light of forthcoming C.B.A. Agreement 2011-2012. Employees, in circumstances, were not justified to invoke constitutional jurisdiction of High Court. No ground existed for interference in the order passed by Single Judge of High Court. Intra-Court appeal being devoid of any merit was dismissed, in circumstances. [HC(Lhr, Multan Bench): Fayyaz Ahmad Nadeem Butt and 15 others vs. State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan through Chairman and 3 others; 2017 PLC 172].
National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973--
Regln. 32--NIRC Powers--Interim relief--Scope
NIRC have distinct powers regarding unfair labour practice when it was apprehended to be committed and where it had already been committed.
During pendency of workers' grievance petitions filed at National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC), employer company dismissed some of the workers on the ground that principal of the company terminated agreement in respect of equipment maintenance and repair work done by the company therefore; workers employed for such purpose had become surplus. NIRC suspended operation of termination letters issued to such workers--Validity. Held, in Regln.32 of National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973, there was a clear distinction between cases where unfair labour practice was apprehended to be committed and where unfair labour practice had already been committed.
Power of NIRC where unfair labour practice had already been committed was governed by Regln.32(1) of NIRC (Procedure and Functions) Regulation, 1973, and in the cases where unfair labour practice was apprehended to be committed power of NIRC was regulated by Regln.32(2). While passing order in question, NIRC failed to advert grounds taken in termination letter and other issues relating to jurisdiction to pass ante status quo which had also not dealt with in a proper manner. High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction set aside order passed by NIRC...