| Case ID |
2bcba86e-5bf8-40eb-8838-e3a154fbc9f9 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Appeal No. 12(35) of 2003 |
| Decision Date |
Mar 15, 2004 |
| Hearing Date |
Mar 15, 2004 |
| Decision |
The appeal was accepted, and the impugned order dated 20.05.2003 was set aside as it was found to be illegal and without jurisdiction. The Commission ruled that the member did not have the authority to grant interim relief in the manner done and emphasized that the powers of the Commission concerning interim relief are limited and distinct from those of a Civil Court. The decision highlighted the necessity for registered trade unions to claim the pendency of industrial disputes as a prerequisite for stay orders. The final ruling clarified that the reinstatement of dismissed employees was beyond the powers of the Commission under the given regulations. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around an appeal by Lucky Textiles Mills against an order from the National Industrial Relations Commission, which reinstated employees in the face of a dispute. The Commission found that the member had acted beyond jurisdiction by granting an interim order without proper authority. The ruling emphasized the distinct powers of the Commission and civil courts regarding interim relief. The case underscores the importance of procedural compliance with the Industrial Relations Ordinance and sets a precedent on the jurisdictional limits of the Commission in labor disputes. Keywords such as 'Industrial Relations', 'jurisdiction', 'interim relief', and 'labor law' are crucial for understanding the nuances of this case and its implications for future labor-related legal proceedings. |
| Court |
National Industrial Relations Commission
|
| Entities Involved |
National Industrial Relations Commission,
Lucky Textiles Mills
|
| Judges |
Syed Altaf Hussain Shah,
Syed Sultan Ahmad,
Fazal-e-Qadir
|
| Lawyers |
Mr. Faisal Mahmood Ghani,
Mr. Ghulam Sarwar Chandio
|
| Petitioners |
Lucky Textiles Mills
|
| Respondents |
Respondent 2,
Respondent 3,
Respondent 4,
Respondent 5,
Respondent 6,
Respondent 7,
Respondent 8,
Abdul Rashid,
Respondent 9,
Respondent 10,
Respondent 11,
Respondent 12,
Respondent 13,
Respondent 14,
Respondent 15
|
| Citations |
2004 SLD 3766,
2004 PLJ 160
|
| Other Citations |
Not available
|
| Laws Involved |
Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002,
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
|
| Sections |
49(4),
39
|