Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: EMPLOYEES UNION VS Respondent: PAKISTAN TOBACCO Co. LTD.
Court Name: Labour Appellate Tribunal Judge(s): Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi Title: EMPLOYEES UNION vs PAKISTAN TOBACCO Co. LTD. Case No.: Application No. JM-26 of 1983 Date of Judgment:1983-02-13 Reported As: 1983 PLC 1087 Result: Revision dismissed
Judgment ORDER This revision emanates from the order dated 29th January, 1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 6, Rawalpindi, whereby the petition for temporary injunction was dismissed. 2. The facts are that the employees of the respondent whose pay is less than Rs. 1,000 are covered by the Social Security Ordinance and get free treatment from the social security dispensary and the respondent pays to the said Social Security 7% of wages of all the employees to whom Social Security Ordinance applies. The employees getting pay of Rs. 1,000 or more are not covered by the above-mentioned Ordinance and the respondent pays them Rs. 84 per month as medical allowance. In view of a High Court judgment reported in NLR 1982 Labour 96 that the employees getting Rs. 1,000 or more, are covered by the Social Security Ordinance, the respondent company stopped paying them medical allowance. The C. B. A had brought application under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 challenging the order of the respondent and applied for injunction. Obviously the workers and not the union have been affected by the act of the respondent, so prima facie section 34 is not applicable. The workers who feel aggrieved by the act ,q of the respondent may have, after serving grievance notice, brought grievance petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordi--nance, 1969. The petitioner union, therefore, cannot be said to have a prima facie case. The revision, therefore, is dismissed in limine.