| Case ID |
00abe1fb-6ab9-4691-b2e2-59a1a082e865 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
W.P. No. 11194 of 1991 |
| Decision Date |
Dec 03, 1991 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
This constitution petition is directed against the order dated January 16, 1991, issued by the learned Member of N.I.R.C., wherein the petitioner's application under section 8(7) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 was dismissed. The observations noted that the petitioner, having been promoted to Assistant Engineer with control over 40 workmen, is empowered by the T&T Department service manual to impose penalties on the working staff. Consequently, by operation of law, he has ceased to be a member of the Union. Additionally, the order dated September 3, 1991, by the Full Bench of N.I.R.C., confirmed the previous dismissal of the petitioner's appeal. The petitioner, through learned counsel, contended that the question of whether his promotion renders him an employer and removes his Union membership is a factual question requiring evidence, which was not adequately considered. The petitioner argued that the T&T Manual provisions are inapplicable and that appointment powers lie under the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion & Transfer) Rules, 1973, which designate Grade-20 officers with appointment authority. The court concluded that no valid case exists for interference in the exercise of extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction, leading to the dismissal of the petition. |
| Summary |
In the case of Abdul Hamid Dar vs N.I.R.C. before the Lahore High Court, cited as 1992 SLD 1916 and 1992 KLR 137, the petitioner challenged the dismissal of his application under section 8(7) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969. Promoted to Assistant Engineer with supervisory responsibilities over 40 workmen, the petitioner was deemed an employer by the T&T Department service manual, thereby terminating his union membership. The decision, rendered by Judge KHALIL-UL-REHMAN, J on December 3, 1991, upheld the orders of N.I.R.C., emphasizing that the petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that the T&T Manual provisions were inapplicable. The petitioner argued that his role did not confer employer status as defined under the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion & Transfer) Rules, 1973, and that the key questions were factual and required the opportunity to present evidence. However, the court found no grounds to interfere with the existing orders under extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction. Key themes in this case include labor law compliance, employer versus workman status, administrative law, and the interpretation of service manuals within union membership contexts. This case underscores the importance of clear definitions and procedural fairness in employment-related legal disputes, particularly concerning administrative promotions and their implications on union affiliations and employer powers under the Industrial Relations Ordinance. |
| Court |
Lahore High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
N.I.R.C.,
T & T Department
|
| Judges |
KHALIL-UL-REHMAN, J
|
| Lawyers |
Not available
|
| Petitioners |
Abdul Hamid Dar
|
| Respondents |
N.I.R.C.
|
| Citations |
1992 SLD 1916,
1992 KLR 137
|
| Other Citations |
Not available
|
| Laws Involved |
Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969,
Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion & Transfer) Rules, 1973,
Constitution
|
| Sections |
8(7)
|