Pakistan Case Law1986 PLC 407
These three appeals challenged an order of the Sind Labour Court dismissing the grievance petitions filed by the appellants under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, following their dismissal from service for misconduct. The core legal questions were whether the appellants could be dismissed while conciliation proceedings were pending, and whether prior permission from the Labour Court under section 47 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, was required for their dismissal. The tribunal held that since a certificate of failure of conciliation proceedings had been issued prior to the dismissals, conciliation proceedings were no longer pending, rendering section 47 inapplicable, and that the finding of misconduct by the Labour Court regarding the appellants' unlawful assembly and disruptive activities was justified. The court concluded by dismissing all three appeals and upholding the Labour Court's order. The key principle laid down is that the protective provisions of section 47 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, regarding the requirement of permission from the Labour Court for dismissal do not apply once conciliation proceedings have formally failed and a failure certificate has been issued.
- Can an employee be dismissed from service during the pendency of conciliation proceedings under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Whether prior permission from the Labour Court under section 47 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, is required for the dismissal of union office-bearers after the failure of conciliation proceedings?
- Does the issuance of a conciliation failure certificate signify the termination of conciliation proceedings for the purposes of statutory protections under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
DECISION
These three appeals are directed against the order of Sind Labour Court NO.V1, Hyderabad, dated 21‑5‑1985. The Labour Court had dismissed the grievance petitions of the appellants filed under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969. I propose to dispose of these appeals in these 3 cases by a 'single order and which are argued on 12‑11‑1985.
2.The three appellants were employed in the respondent mills and were office‑bearers of the Union. The C.B.A,. union served a charter of demands under section 26(a), I.R.0., 1969 for the payment of bonus and after an agreement, it again advanced the demands for increase of wages etc. The conciliation proceedings ware then initiated. The conciliation proceedings were hampered due to the attitude of the respondents and attempts were made to make the proceedings failure. One, Mr. Younus, the General Manager was brought in the proceedings though he had no connection in the mills for the last seven years, the allegations of the appellants are that the said General Manager wanted to bring some of his favorites in the union gad for this purpose the management started harassment tactics. On lq‑12‑1981, the appellants were gate‑stopped and they were illegally removed from service. Accordingly the grievance notices were sent on 14‑3‑198,2, and on receipt of unsatisfactory replies from the management the grievance petitions were instituted for re‑instatement and back benefits.
3.The stand of the respondents is that the workers Union was neither legally constituted body nor it enjoys the status of the Collective Bargaining Agent. It has been pleaded that the strike notice, dated 12‑5‑1981, and 16‑1‑1982 were served by the workers Union but the conciliation proceedings ended into failure. The Collective Bargaining Agent Union could, therefore, approach the Labour Court under section 32(1‑A) of the I.R.O., 1969, but instead of adopting the legal course, its office‑bearers including the appellants started pressurizing the management by threatening and using coercive methods. In order to accomplish their task, the appellants alongwith other arranged the gathering of the workers of 'A' and 'B' shifts on 29‑9‑1981 at 3.00 p.m. inside the mills premises and they not only held unlawful meetings but also raised slogans inciting the workers to slow down production to damage the quality of the manufactured goods and that adopted other methods of hindrances. The unlawful attitude of the appellants and others was duly communicated to various authorities. The production was slowed down and the quality of the manufactured goods were of poor quality. The appellants were, therefore, charge‑sheeted on 30‑9‑1981 and when the charge‑sheets were personally offered to them, they refused to receive the same and so the charge‑sheets were not only repeatedly sent by registered post A/D, but the same were also published in Daily 'Pasban' Hyderabad. The enquiry letters were also sent to them in the same manner and consequently ex parte enquiries were held. The appellants were dismissed from service on 14‑12‑1981.
4.In the Labour Court the evidence was led by the appellant Muhammad Idris, Amin, Zahoor Ahmad, Qazi Ramizuddin, Raja Mohammad Khan and Muhammad Amin on behalf of the respondents. It was decided and agreed that the evidence recorded in other case of Muhammad Idris, would be read in other two cases also.
5.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned representative of the appellants has insisted on two points, firstly, that the conciliation proceedings were pending and therefore, the appellants could not be dismissed; secondly, he referred to section 47 of I.R.O., 1969 and the permission was not granted by the Labour Court for their dismissal. These are only two points raised in appeals by the learned representative of the appellant. As regards the facts of the case, the appellants representative did not argue.
6.I proceed to answer the points raised in appeal. There is a certificate that the conciliation proceedings have failed and this certificate is as under:‑
"A strike notice under section 26(3) of‑ the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, was served by the General Secretary, Modern Textile Mills Workers Union, Tando Jam, upon the management of Messrs Modern Textile Mills Limited, Tando Jam, on 12th May, 1981, for settlement. A series of joint conciliation meetings were held from time to time, but the parties could not come to an agreement on the above dispute upto 1‑11‑1981.
As, the management considers the demand of the union too high which, they cannot accede after paying additional Cost of Living Allowance of Rs.40 per month from 1st July, 1981, as required under the Employees Cost of Living (Relief) (Amendment,) Ordinance, 1981, they have refused to continue further negotiations. Hence failure of conciliation proceedings.
Sd/‑Habib Ahmad Siddiqui.
5‑11‑1981
Assistant Director, Labour
(Conciliation), Hyderabad.
Therefore the above certificate indicates that there was a failure so far the conciliation proceedings were concerned. Section 47 of the I.R.O.1969, would not be, in the circumstance, invoked as the conciliation proceedings had failed.
7.On merits, the learned Labour Court considered the misbehaviour of the appellants in forming the unlawful assembly of the workers within the premises of the mills and without permission of the management and other nefarious activities conducted by the workers in this respect, were designated as acts of misbehaviour and misconduct. I fully agree with the learned Labour Court in this respect.
8.Under these circumstances, these three appeals fail and accordingly I dismiss these three appeals.
A.E. Appeals dismissed.
Judges on this bench
- Ali Nawaz Budhani721 judgments