Proposed Bill provides for trade unions and freedom of association. Unfortunately the word 'association' has not been defined in the Act. Presumption is that associations refer to that pertaining to employer.
The proposed law provides for freedom of association being given to the worker without distinction whatsoever to establish and to join any trade union, yet the Bill provides a long list of establishments where the provisions of Industrial Relations Act 2008 are not to be applied.
The concept of joining by trade unions with international associations is of recent origin. There was no such provision either in the repealed Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 or Industrial Relations Ordinance 2002.
Employer's Association will be required to be registered, which means that even Employer's Federation of Pakistan or for that matter all other Employers Associations dealing with Sugar, Textile and other such industries are required to be registered under the Industrial Relations Act 2008.
This will result in an anomalous position. There is also provision in the said Act 2008 that law of the land is to be respected. This provision of law is hard to appreciate. Law of land is always required to be respected and does not require to be incorporated in any specific Statute. Requirement for registration of trade unions are more or less the same as is provided in the Industrial Relations Organisation 1969 and IRO 2002.
In the Bill, reference has been made to groups of establishments, yet in the definition clause, for unknown reasons, this phrase "group of establishments" has not been defined. There can be a situation of a group of establishment either belonging to the same employer, or there can be a group of establishments owned by different employers or a group of establishments of the same nature of industries, or of different industries.
All this will lead to confusion. In the absence of a definition as to this term "group of establishments", confusion will continue. In the requirement for registration, it is provided that seventy five percent of the office bearers, forming the execution of the union shall be from amongst workmen, engaged or employed in the establishment for which the trade union has been formed.
It is nowhere mentioned, as to who would be the twenty five percent outsiders. Are they to be full time paid trade union workers or advocates or part-time unionist, politician etc? Can an employer come within the ambit of twenty five per cent outsiders? This aspect of the matter has been examined by the Karachi High Court in 2001 PLC 44.
It is therefore imperative that if the Government intends to encourage healthy growth of trade unionism, then the figure of seventy five per cent should be enhanced and all office bearers forming the execution should be workmen actually engaged or employed in the establishment, leaving professional labour leaders, only an advisory role, but not holding office in the union.
This law so accepting this proposal will enable the employer to effectively bargain with the collective bargaining agent and will also prevent mushroom and frivolous litigation by outsiders, aimed at pressurising the management with ulterior motives. It appears that provision of law in relation to the Bill pertaining to requirement of registration has been reproduced verbatim.
The provision of law for disqualification from being an officer for trade union only restricts and confines that the person to be disqualified, if he is convicted from committing any heinous offences under Pakistan Penal Code.
This has a restricted disqualification. Any person who is responsible for resorting to violation of any of the provision of Industrial Relations Act 2008, or who indulges in illegal strikes, misappropriates union's funds, commits breach or violation of the settlement, should equally stand disqualified from being elected or holding office of trade union.
There is no time limit provided for such disqualification. It should either be for all times to come and or for a minimum period of five years. The provision of law which provides for a registered trade union to maintain a register, only mentions accounts showing receipt and expenditure and showing subscriptions paid by the members.
The law no where provides for accountability of the union funds collected through donations either on the eve of conclusion of a settlement, and or institution of proceedings in any Court of law. Neither any receipts are given to the worker for such contribution nor are these contribution accounted for in the books maintained by the Union. For all intents and purposes they are used for either prolonging litigation or utilised for ulterior motives.
There should therefore be a provision in Law which should make it incumbent that all payments other than check off, should not only be accounted for, but proper receipts to the workers be given and the accounts to be shown in the books of accounts of the union and in the annual returns to be submitted to the Registrar of Trade Unions.
The law provides that the Registrar of Trade Unions, if satisfied that a trade union who has applied has met all requirements, shall be entitled to be registered. Satisfaction on the part of Registrar of Trade Unions is always subjective and not objective.
There should be exercised of due diligence and verification of facts before any union is registered. The point of view of the employer should also be taken into consideration, and if not found legally sustainable should be rejected through a speaking Order.
Experience has shown that Registrar of Trade Unions, includes at the behest of the union, even names amongst members of union, persons who are neither employed by the employer nor paid salary or wages by the employer nor work under the control and supervision of the employer. Such persons are employees of contractor, but unfortunately their names are included by the union and approved by the Registrar Trade Union, which subsequently leads to number of litigations.
It is therefore imperative that this mischief should be checked and before a union is registered, it should be ensured that the members of the union are the employees of the company or the organisation are paid salary by the organisation and work under the control and supervision of the employer.
If they are engaged by the contractor, then another separate trade union exclusively of the contractor's workers can be formed and registered which can raise dispute or demand against contractor and not the employer and or establishment where such contract of work has been given.
The law next provides for seeking permission of the Registrar of Trade Unions against transfer of office bearers during the pendency of application for registration. Transfer is the contracted right of the employer. Dismissal on proven acts of misconduct after issuing charge sheet and enquiry is also a right.
To discharge an employee on payment of all legal dues and on assignment of reason is the right of the employer. For enforcement of such a right no permission be obtained from Registrar of Trade Unions. Experience has shown that hardly any such permission has ever been granted by Registrar of Trade Unions. Certificate of registration should only raise a presumption that the union has been registered.
There should be no further presumption that it has been validly registered in accordance with the law, should be subject to objections before the competent Court of Law. Cancellation of the registration of a trade union is divided into three parts.
Union's registration can be cancelled if the union has contravened or has been registered in contravention of any of the provisions of law, contravened any of the provisions of its Constitution or has made provisions in the Constitution which are inconsistent with the Act.
Recent and past experience has shown that notwithstanding illegal strikes, slow down in work, violations which pertain to acts of unfair labour practices or in any contravention of law, neither under the Industrial Relations Act 2008 or the earlier Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 or Industrial Relations Ordinance 2002 any of the registrations of unions have been, or will be, cancelled. This is an unfortunate situation.
Registrar of Trade Unions are invariably hand in glove with professional labour leaders, and they can ill afford to apply for the cancellation of registration of a trade union.
The power to apply for the cancellation of registration of the union in the Labour Court should not be restricted to the Registrar of Trade Union, but to any person, including an employer, who should be permitted to apply to the Labour Court for the cancellation of the registration of union if the union is registered in contravention of any of the law, or has contravened any of the provisions of its Constitution or, still further, has made any provision in the Constitution which is inconsistent with the Act.
Registrar of Trade Unions is a public functionary. No one should be dependent upon him. Any person who is aggrieved against a violation of law, or violation of the Constitution committed by the union should be permitted, as of right, to apply for the cancellation of registration of the union to the Labour Court.
Likewise, if a person is disqualified from holding office but is elected as office bearer of a registered trade union, its registration can be cancelled by the Labour Court only on an Application made by Registrar of Trade Union. This condition should be extended, and not only the Registrar of Trade Union but also any employer be conferred the right to apply for cancellation of the union in the Labour Court.
It has next been observed that the Registrar of Trade Union invariably is also the Director of Labour. This leads to power being misused and abused. The registration of trade union should be an altogether separate wing. Inspection under the Factories Act 1934 should be separate. Conciliation Wing should be separate. Each of these three Wings should be directly under the Secretary Labour in the Province.
The Director of Labour is presently appointed by name to the Office. There is no separate notification by name as to the Registrar of Trade Union. This results in a series of litigation. This should be avoided. The law also requires the Registrar of Trade Union to perform certain functions. Invariably, it has been observed that these functions are not performed in person by the Registrar of Trade Union but by his sub-ordinate staff which is not permissible in law.
Registrar of Trade Union performs a quasi judicial function. Such quasi judicial functionary, which is a creation of a statute, cannot delegate his powers or functions to any other person. All enquiries are to be conducted by the Registrar of Trade Union in person and not to be passed on to his subordinates. This function, if performed by the Registrar Trade Union, will go a along way in avoiding litigation.
Experience has also shown that the Registrar of Trade Union alone has any power to apply for the cancellation of trade union registration. He also arbitrarily and unilaterally withdraws such a complaint from the Labour Court at times. Furthermore, the Registrar Trade Union does not himself pursue the case for cancellation of registration of trade union.
This function is performed by his office staff who become hand in glove with the labour leader, refrain from attending the Court and cases are hence dismissed for non-appearance and no-prosecution. The list of unfair labour practices on the part of an employer and workers next require consideration. This list is arbitrary and almost one sided.
The proposed list of unfair labour practices should include any acts of unfair labour practice on the part of workmen, like calculation of funds other than check off, as an act of unfair labour practice. The law will thus go long way in preventing collection of unaccounted for amounts from the worker, either at the time of conclusion of the settlement with the CBA or fund collected from individual workers for pursuing litigation, which are all unaccounted for and lead to an unhealthy tendency. Furthermore, unfair labour practice refers to 'go-slow', yet in the definition clause this term has not been defined.
It calls for definition. The law makes the closing down of the establishment without permission of the Labour Court, under Standing Order 11-A, as an act of unfair labour practice.
Closing down of business is one of the fundamental rights of the employer and any provision which prevents the exercise of such a fundamental right, is ultra virus the Constitution. No doubt all fundamental rights are subject to reasonable restrictions, but in proceedings under Standing Order 11A, no right of appeal against the decision refusing the employer to close down an establishment has been conferred. Furthermore, there is no time limit provided within which the Labour Court has to decide such a case for permission.
The method or procedure to be followed has also not been laid down. This provision is thus altogether ultra virus, the law and any provision, which is ultra virus the law cannot simultaneously be termed as an act of unfair labour practice. The clause dealing with the closing down of the whole establishment being in contravention of Constitution should be deleted altogether.
There is a provision in the law for the registration of a Federation of Trade Unions. There can be a Federation registered with the National Industrial Relations Commission as an industry-wise Federation and there can also be a Federation registered by the Provincial Registrar Trade Union.
The Federation can either be of the same nature of industry or belonging to different industries. All these have not been clarified which will lead to further litigation in due course of time and require elaboration.
There are provisions in all labour legislations like IRO 1969, IRO 2002 and presumably in proposed Industrial Relations Act 2008 which provide for annual submission of returns for which no consequences of non-filing of the annual return within the stipulated period has been mentioned. There are large number of instances where for years altogether unions have failed to submit annual returns, either within the stipulated period or otherwise, yet their registrations are intact.
It should be provided for that, not only annual returns be submitted within 30 days of the closing of the account each year, duly audited by a Chartered Accountant, but still further the accounts should not only be restricted and confined to receipts like check off but also donations and collections made by the union on the eve of conclusion of settlement or for litigation in the courts and for any other consideration for which neither any receipts are issued, nor amount accounted for in the register.
Each year, along with annual returns, the change of office bearers have to be mentioned. No doubt office bearers are elected for two years. There should be a provision in the law that no person can hold office for a trade union for more than two terms.
If there is a provision in the Constitution of Pakistan, which restricts the people of Pakistan from electing a Prime Minister for more than two terms, there is no reason why such a condition should not be applied to the union. There are a large number unions where office bearers have been elected and have been holding office for years altogether.
The provision of the Collective Bargaining Agent, is no doubt a healthy provision. However, past experience has shown that even after expiry of the terms of office of union as a Collective Bargaining Agent, the union continues to hold this status.
The Registrar of Trade Union must ensure that before the term of CBA of the union comes to an end, there be conducted a secret ballot, and if the same union is re-elected as C.B.A, the two years fresh term should commence from the expiry of the earlier period or else the newly declared CBA should take charge on expiry of the terms of tenure of the earlier CBA.
In this way, there will be no vacuum and no misuse of the provision of law. Unfortunately, in the past, it has been noticed that there are large number of organisations, where for years altogether, trade unions have claimed the status of being CBA although no secret ballot for determination of CBA has been conducted.
In some cases for more than 35 years. In any case, after two years, the secret ballot should be held, even if unchallenged by any of the workers, so that the Registrar of Trade Union is satisfied that the Union claiming to be the CBA has not less than 1/3 of the total number of workmen employed in such an establishment, who should vote for such a union to act as a CBA for the next term.
Needless to mention that there should also be specific provisions that, in a certain industry, such determination of CBA should not be conducted during the period of season when the factory is operating, or in a seasonable factory which has been defined under Section 4 of the Factories Act 1934.
Unfortunately the Sugar Industry has been excluded from the ambit of the seasonal factory. In any Sugar Industry, secret ballot for the determination of CBA during the crushing season, will not only disrupt production, but will have adverse effect on the productivity of the company, being a continuous process.
In such an organisation secret ballot should be conducted not during the crushing season, but when no crushing of sugar is being conducted. Past experience has shown that in case of doubt, on the part of the employer, secret ballot for determination of CBA has been deferred or postponed. In some cases for months together, which has led to labour unrest.
It is neither in the interests of the workers nor the employer that secret ballot and determination of CBA be delayed or deferred for an indefinite period. No person should be allowed to take advantage of such a flaw in the law. Section 52 of the repealed I.R.O. 1969 and Section 22 of I.R.O. 2002 are meaningless provisions. Unfortunately, this section has again been sought to be introduced in the Industrial Relations Act 2008, which is a piece of bad drafting.
Furthermore the law has overlooked the fact that the concept of recognition of a trade union is a concept of the repealed Trade Union Act 1926, Repealed Industrial Dispute Act 1947 and Repealed West Pakistan Industrial Dispute Ordinance 1968, and the repealed Trade Unions Ordinance.
Recognition of a trade union, so effected under Section 28C of Trade Union Act 1926, by the employer seeking a settlement with the union or with their various representative, was provided at that time as there was no concept of a Collective Bargaining Agent. Now this concept of recognition of a union has been replaced by the concept of a CBA.
The provision of Section 52 of IRO 1969 or Section 22 of IRO 2002 or an identical position in the proposed Industrial Relations Act 2008, if any, are outdated concepts and have to be deleted altogether from the statute. The next provision which requires detailed examination is one pertaining to National Industrial Relation Commission.
The one basic and fundamental defect in the proposed law is that the appointment of Office of a Chairman and Members of the Commission are to be determined by the Federal Government and are not to be effected, based on the principle of Al-Jehad Trust, which principle has been laid down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in PLD 1996 SC 324.
The entire Constitution of the NIRC will then be held to be ultra virus the law, if appointments are made in violation of law laid down in Al-Jehad Trust. The Trade Union Act, 1926 was adopted in Pakistan at the time of Partition under the Adaptation of Central Acts and Ordinance Order 1949, published under the Central Statute PLD 1949 page-1.
The Indian Trade Union Act, 1926 is listed as one of the adopted laws at page 41 in the Schedule of this Journal, deleting the word 'Indian'. This law was subsequently repealed by the West Pakistan Trade Union Ordinance, 1968 being Ordinance No V of 1968 and published in PLD 1968 West Pakistan Statute, Page 106.
Under the Trade Union Act, 1926 and the West Pakistan Trade Union Ordinance, 1968, there was no concept of an Industry wise Trade Union, membership of which extended in more than one province. In the West Pakistan Trade Union Ordinance, 1968, the then Government of the West Pakistan, by virtue of Section 3, was empowered to appoint one or more persons as Registrar of Trade Union.
Practicable problems and difficulties did not arise in West Pakistan, being one province and the registration of trade union, with membership in Karachi, Lahore, Peshawar or Quetta, could be registered without much difficulty by the Central Labour Commissioner who also notified the Registrar of Trade Unions.
Trade Unions were registered under the Trade Unions Act 1926 and thereafter, under the West Pakistan Trade Unions Ordinance, 1968. As against this, for resolution of disputes and grievances, the Industrial Dispute Ordinance, 1947 was adopted in Pakistan which continued to remain in the field, till it was replaced by the West Pakistan Industrial Dispute Ordinance, 1968.
Thereafter, in 1969, the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was promulgated whereby the basic features of trade unions and resolution of disputes separately incorporated as the West Pakistan Trade Unions Ordinance, 1968 and West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968 were all amalgamated in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
This Ordinance, has been published in PLD 1970 Central Statutes page-1 at page 49 and by virtue of the original text of the law. The West Pakistan Trade Unions Ordinance, 1968 and the Industrial Relations ordinance, 1968 were repealed. In the original text of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, the establishment by the Provincial Government of Labour court were provided in terms of section 35 of the said ordinance.
Practicable problems and difficulties arose, as by now one unit had been disbanded and there were four provinces in Pakistan and each of the four provinces, were empowered to appoint separate labour courts and separate Registrar of Trade Unions for registration of unions. In terms of section 35 more than one Labour Courts could be established and territorial limits of these labour courts have been defined by the Provincial Governments in the official gazettes.
Thus in the original Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 there were provisions for the registration of the unions in terms of section 6, 7 and 8 by the Provincial Registrar to be appointed in terms of section 12 thereof, but there was no forum available for the adjudication of industrial disputes, or redressal of any grievance by the union, or in relation to members of the unions, whose membership extended beyond one province.
It is under these circumstances that for the first time as a result of Ordinance, IX of 1972 by virtue of Labour Laws Amendment Ordinance, 1972 which has been published in PLD 1972 Central Statute page 632, relevant law at page 638 onwards the concept of the National Industrial Relations Commission was incorporated in terms of section 22-A.
Earlier on 17th October, 1970 the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969, was amended whereby section 22-A was introduced, but this dealt with only with CBA for more than one establishment. This section 22-A was thus substituted by section 22-A (1) whereby the concept of National Industrial Relations Commission was introduced.
Perusal of the original section 22-A in Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 in general will reveal that the functions of the Commission were to promote federations at the national level, adjudicate and determine industrial disputes raised by an Industry wise Trade Unions, and in the explanation following section 22-A(13), it was mentioned that the expression Industry wise Trade Unions, Federation of such trade unions and federation at national level referred to trade unions whose membership extended into establishments in more than one province and federations of trade unions was one whose membership extends to registered trade unions in more than one province.
In other words, for the first time the forum was made available to those unions who were registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 whose registration was protected by the West Pakistan Trade Unions Ordinance, 1968 to also seek remedy from the National Industrial Relations Commission.
Subsequently, the Labour Laws Amendments Ordinance, 1972 was corrected in the Labour Laws Amendment Act, 1972, published in PLD 1972 Central Statutes at page 777 relevant portion, at page 781, where words 'which is not confined to matters of purely local nature' were incorporated for the first time in relation to the functions of the Commission.
It will, therefore be appreciated that if provision of Section 22-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 as amended is read leading to the establishment and creation of the National Industrial Relations Commission in the context of the establishment of the labour court by the Provincial Government.
It is very clear and obvious that the Labour Courts are established in terms of section 35 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 by the Provincial Government and in the notification, territorial limits of Labour Court are confined.
Registrar of Trade Unions has been notified again by the Provincial Government in the official gazette in terms of section 12 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and the jurisdiction of the Labour court to adjudicate and determine the industrial dispute, adjudicate matters relating to the implementation or violation of the settlement, try offences under the Ordinance or redress individual or collective grievances and exercise and perform such other powers as are conferred or assigned under or by the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 or under any other law.
As against this the function of the National Industrial Relations Commission, as incorporated under section 22-A(8), IRO 1969 is to promote federations at the national level, adjudicate industrial disputes in which the Industry wise unions are party or those industrial disputes which are referred to the NIRC by the Federal Government being matters of national importance.
Registrar Industry wise Trade Unions, determination of CBAs amongst the Industry wise Trade Unions and deal with cases of unfair labour practices in the manner as laid down under section 25-A or 34, IRO 1969. The word 'Industry wise Trade Union' has been defined in the explanation to section 22-A(13) IRO 1969 as identical provisions in IRO 2002 or in the proposed Bill as a trade union whose membership extends in more than one province and the federation of such union extends in more than one province.
With the establishment of the National Industrial Relations Commission in the context of Labour Court, two separate independent labour judiciary were established. In matters pertaining to the local nature or trade unions registered with the Provincial Registrar of Trade Unions, Labour Courts were established in terms of section 38 with appeal before the Labour Appellate Tribunal or High Court, as at present in the respective provinces.
As against this, in relation to those unions registered as Industry wise Trade Unions or whose membership extends to more than one province, and or individual grievances in relation to members of such industry wise trade unions, the National Industrial Relations Commission was to perform and have the same powers and functions in terms of section 22-A(8), IRO 1969 with a right to appeal in terms of section 22-D, IRO 1969 before the Full Bench, NIRC.
Furthermore, in terms of section 22-B(3) (a) of IRO 1969 in relation to cases based on allegation of unfair labour practice before the Commission for trial of such cases or for enforcement of or for the redressal of individual grievances in respect of any right guaranteed and secured to any employee or workman by or under the law, the NIRC was to exercise the same powers as that of the Labour Court.
In other words, it was never the intention of the legislature to establish two separate parallel labour judiciary each vying to transgress the powers of other judiciary. The Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, IRO 2002 or the present Bill of Industrial Relations Act 2008 should be read harmoniously being a social legislation to ensure that various provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 or the subsequent laws do not conflict with each other.
It was with this end in view that in Constitution Petition No 2550/2001 in the case of Pearl Continental Hotel V/s Pearl Continental Hotel Workers Union. DB 1 consisting of Hon'ble Chief Justice Saiyed Saeed Ashhad and Mr Justice Mushir Alam made an in depth analysis of various provisions of section 22-A(8), IRO 1969. This detailed discussion appears at page-7 onwards.
After examining various provisions of law, the DB-1 referred to section 22-A(8) (f), IRO 1969 which deals with trying of offences punishable under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The learned DB-1 examined the explanation to section 22-A(13) which defines Industry-wise Trade Unions and reading various provisions of law in harmony with each other.
The DB-I came to the conclusion that in clause (g) of section 22-A(8), IRO 1969, the National Industrial Relations Commission has jurisdiction to entertain applications pertaining to unfair labour practice filed by the Industry-wise Trade Unions, Federations of such trade unions or federation at the national level, whereas trade unions, having been registered with provincial registrars and having representation only in one province, cannot invoke the jurisdiction of NIRC in respect of cases of unfair labour practices.
And for redressal of such grievances, resort be made to section 22-A(12), IRO 1969 before the Labour Court which is equally competent to entertain cases of unfair labour practice, whether committed individually or collectively.
In so coming to this conclusion, the learned DB-1 has referred to an unreported decision of Mr Justice Zia Mehmood Mirza Chairman, NIRC who was a retired judge of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, in case No 4A(307)/1999 whose judgment has been upheld by the Full Bench, NIRC in appeal No 12(28)/2000, with the conclusion that the jurisdiction of section 22-A(8), IRO 1969 extends only to cases of industry-wise trade unions, federations of such trade unions and federations at national level.
This decision of the Division Bench of the High Court in Constitution Petition No 2550/2001 was binding on the Division Benches of the same High Court, on the basis of the principle laid down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in 1999 SCMR 1719, 1995 SCMR 362, PLD 1995 SC 423, PLD 1963 SC 293.
However, with due respect, Division Bench II in Constitution Petition No 951 and 952 of 2001 had examined this judgment in C.P. No 2550/2001 and considered the text of section 22-A(8)(g), IRO 1969, which text does not include section 22-A(8)(c) phrase 'and which is not confined to matter of purely local nature.'
The implication of this phrase was thus not considered apparently because the text of Labour Laws with DB-II did not contain this amendment. The learned DB-II thereafter referred to section 22-A(8)(f) which deals with powers of the National Industrial Relations Commission to try offences and also referred to SRO 623(1)/73 at page 11 dated 27th April, 1973 and reproduced the same at page-11 of its judgement.
The learned DB-II came to the conclusion that apparently this notification was not brought to the attention of the learned members of DB-I and therefore, it came to the conclusion that this calls for constitution of Full Bench of the High Court. With due respect to the learned DB-II, the limited issue for consideration before DB-I as also before this Full Bench is exercise of powers of NIRC in terms of section 22-A(8)(g), IRO 1969 read with section 25-A(10), IRO 1969. These proceedings are basically of civil nature.
It goes without saying that there are two types of proceedings before the NIRC. One is of civil nature and the other of criminal nature in terms of section 22-A(8)(f), IRO 1969. In addition thereto by virtue of section 22-A(i), Federal Government has been vested with powers to grant such further powers and functions to the NIRC as the Federal Government may so assign from time to time.
SRO 623(1)/73 is in the context of powers of criminal nature of NIRC in terms of section 22-A(8)(f), IRO 1969 for trial of offences of unfair labour practice and not in relation to section 22-A(8)(g), IRO 1969 which is of civil power of NIRC and was issued in exercise of the powers under section 22-A(8)(f), IRO 1969. This distinction between the civil power and criminal powers of NIRC has been dealt with by the DB-I who at page 14 has been pleased to observe as under:-
"In the first place, the issue before the Court in this Constitution Petition is the exercise of jurisdiction by NIRC in section 22-A (8) (g), IRO 1969 to deal with the cases of unfair labour practice specified in section 15 and 16 of IRO 1969 and whether such jurisdiction can be invoked by a trade union registered at provincial level by the Provincial Registrar of Trade Unions."
Comments
Comments are closed.