| Case ID |
440ede3f-a661-4318-b3fb-1f99527e85e5 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
7A(136) of 2012-L |
| Decision Date |
Mar 26, 2013 |
| Hearing Date |
Jan 08, 2013 |
| Decision |
In the matter presented before the National Industrial Relations Commission, the petition filed by Agritech Limited seeking permission to close down its Urea Manufacturing Plant at Iskandarabad was meticulously reviewed. The Commission scrutinized the legality and maintainability of the petition, considering the application's submission by the Factory Manager on behalf of the manufacturing unit, rather than the company as a whole. It was determined that the requisite authority was not duly provided for the petition to be considered valid. Furthermore, the lack of an 'industrial dispute' between the establishment and the union, as indicated in the pleadings, reinforced the Commission's stance that the petition did not fall within its purview. As a result, the petition was deemed not maintainable under the relevant provisions of the Industrial Relations Act and associated statutes, leading to its dismissal. |
| Summary |
The National Industrial Relations Commission adjudicated Case No. 7A(136) of 2012-L, decided on March 26, 2013, involving Agritech Limited and Workers Union Pak-American Fertilizers Limited. The petitioner, Agritech Limited, through its Factory Manager, sought permission under Order 11-A of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, to close down its Urea Manufacturing Plant in Iskandarabad due to significant financial losses and operational challenges stemming from the non-supply of Sui Gas by SNGPL. The petition highlighted the reduction in production and the resultant financial strain on the company, arguing that continued operation was unviable.
The respondent, Workers Union Pak-American Fertilizers Limited, contested the petition, asserting that the closure was unfounded and that Agritech Limited had not adhered to contractual obligations regarding gas supply. The Union presented evidence of temporary interruptions in gas supply and highlighted efforts by the Petroleum Ministry to address the shortages through a new petroleum policy introduced in August 2012. The Union also pointed out discrepancies in the petitioner’s claims, including a public announcement by the Group Manager indicating a restoration of gas supply and resumption of production.
During the hearings, both parties presented their legal arguments, referencing the Industrial Relations Act (X of 2012) and relevant sections of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968). The petitioner’s counsel argued for the Commission's exclusive jurisdiction over trans-provincial establishments and contended that the term 'Labour Court' in Order 11-A should be interpreted as the 'Commission' in light of the updated legislation. Conversely, the respondent’s counsel maintained that the Commission did not possess the authority to grant the requested closure permissions and that such matters remained under the jurisdiction of provincial Labour Courts.
The Commission meticulously examined the applicability of the laws cited, the authority under which the petition was filed, and the existence of an actual industrial dispute. It was determined that the petition lacked the necessary authority as it was not filed directly by Agritech Limited but by its manufacturing unit without proper authorization. Additionally, the absence of a bona fide industrial dispute between the parties weakened the petitioner’s case.
Citing relevant case law, including South British Insurance Employees Union v. The Sindh Labour Court No.4 and others (1975 SCMR 49) and Tanveer Hussain v. Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways and 2 others (PLD 2006 SC 249), the Commission underscored the importance of adhering to procedural and jurisdictional mandates. The legal precedents reinforced the Commission’s stance on exclusive jurisdiction over trans-provincial matters and the necessity for petitions to be filed by entities with appropriate authority.
Ultimately, the Commission concluded that the petition was not maintainable due to procedural deficiencies and lack of jurisdiction. The absence of explicit authority from Agritech Limited to file on behalf of its manufacturing unit and the failure to establish a legitimate industrial dispute rendered the petition invalid. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, maintaining the status quo of the Urea Manufacturing Plant's operations pending any future lawful actions by the petitioner.
This case underscores the critical importance of compliance with statutory requirements and the necessity for proper authorization when filing petitions. It highlights the Commission’s role in ensuring that only valid and maintainable petitions are entertained, thereby safeguarding the rights of both employers and workers within the industrial framework. The dismissal serves as a precedent for similar future cases, emphasizing procedural integrity and the delineation of jurisdictional boundaries within industrial relations law. |
| Court |
National Industrial Relations Commission
|
| Entities Involved |
SNGPL,
Agritech Limited,
Urea Manufacturing Plant,
Workers Union Pak-American Fertilizers Limited
|
| Judges |
Justice (R) Raja Fayyaz Ahmed
|
| Lawyers |
Ch. Abdul Rab,
Shakh Irfan Akram,
Malik Masood Ahmed
|
| Petitioners |
Agritech Limited
|
| Respondents |
Workers Union Pak-American Fertilizers Limited
|
| Citations |
2014 SLD 353 = 2014 PLC 100
|
| Other Citations |
South British Insurance Employees Union v. The Sindh Labour Court No.4 and others 1975 SCMR 49,
Messrs East-West Insurance Company Ltd. through Chairman and another v. Messrs Muhammad Shafi and Co any through Managing Partner and 2 others 2009 CLD 960,
Tanveer Hussain v. Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways and 2 others PLD 2006 SC 249,
Mumtaz Ali Khan Rajban and another v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 2001 SC 169,
Muhammad Arif v. Muhammad Kawshar Ali and Muhammad Usman Ghani v. The State PLD 1969 SC 435,
Abdul Rahim Khan v. The State 1991 MLD 2448,
National Bank of Pakistan, Quetta v. Muhammad Bakhsh 1989 PLC 139,
Hakam Khuda Yar v. Emperor AIR 1940 Lah. 129,
Jyotish Prokas Chavoraj and another v. Bugla Kanta Chaudhari and others 1922 Calcutta 274,
Ch. Muhammad Yousaf v. Azad Government PLD 2001 Azad J&K 60,
Azad Government v. Genuine Rights Commission 1995 MLD 268,
Muhammad Ismail v. State PLD 1969 SC 24
|
| Laws Involved |
Industrial Relations Act, X of 2012,
Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, VI of 1968
|
| Sections |
54,
60,
11-A
|