Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: BROOKE BOND WORKERS' UNION, KARACHI VS Respondent: BROOKE BOND (PAKISTAN) LTD., KARACHIHonorable Justice Agha Ali HyderA. Majeed,A. Hafiz
1993 P L C 186
1993 P L C 186
[Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh]
Present: Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal
BROOKE BOND WORKERS UNION, KARACHI
versus
M/s. BROOKE BOND (PAKISTAN) LTD., KARACHI
Appeal No. KAR‑497 of 1991, decided on 13th September, 1992.
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S.37(4)‑‑‑Finality to decision of Labour Court‑‑‑Matter in controversy having already been decided by Labour Court and Labour Appellate Tribunal, would attain finality‑‑‑Same matter raised subsequently before Labour Court would be hit by the principle of res judicata‑‑‑Such controversy was also in contravention of Settlement which was still existing and thus, could not be re agitated.
National and Grindlays Bank Employees Federation v. National and Grindlays Bank Limited, Karachi NLR 1983 Labour Cases 37 rel.
A. Majeed, Representative for Appellant.
A. Hartz for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 13th September, 1992.
DECISION
This appeal, briefly put, arises‑ in the following circumstances.
2. The appellants presented an application under section 32(1‑A) of the I.R.O., 1969, before the Labour Court raising the following demands:
"(1) That the age of retirement of the workers should be fixed at 60 years;
(2) That the workmen should be intimated about the dates of birth as entered in the record maintained by the respondents; and
(3) That the workmen should be provided authenticated copies of the relevant entries made in their service record."
3. It was contended in the Written Reply filed by the respondents that these demands had been dismissed by the Labour Court by order, dated 17‑4‑1984 and the appeal therefrom had also failed before this Tribunal vide order, dated 20‑10‑1985. The matter could not be re‑agitated and the application therefore was liable to be dismissed on that ground alone.
4. The objection prevailed before the Labour Court. The order was in the following words:
"The demands raised by the present applicant union are hit by principle of res judicata and also have been raised in contravention of the settlement, dated 29‑9‑1984, which was subsisting at the material time."
5. There are a number of documents on the record to show that the age of retirement had consistently been treated as 55 years and the same have been enumerated in the order. These therefore need not be repeated.
6. As laid down in NLR 1983 Labour Cases page 37 National and Grindlays Bank Employees Federation v. National and Grindlays Bank Limited, Karachi, there is a finality to the decision of the Labour Court duly conferred by section 37(4) of I.R.O.
7. There is also no gainsaying the fact that the application was filed during the subsistence of the Award. Therefore the prayer of Mr. Majeed that fragmentary decisions should be discouraged as held by the Supreme Court is hardly available in the circumstances of the case.
8. Under the circumstances no exception could be taken to the impugned order. I will dismiss the appeal accordingly.
A.A./2091/Lb.S Appeal accordingly dismissed.