Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Commission, Islamabad.
Petition U/s 22-A (8) (g) read with Sec-22-B (3) of I.R.O. 1969.
Written Arguments on behalf of respondent
No. 3, Kot Addu Power Company Ltd.
Respectfully Sheweth: -
Preliminary Objections: -
3. That the petitioners in the petition and also in the evidence did
not mention any act of victimization on account of trade union
activities falling under section 15 of I.R.O. of the part of
respondent No. 3. It is well-established law that Commission
could not exercise its powers available to it U/s 22-A (8) (g)
read with sec-22-B (3) of I.R.O. when unfair labour practice
as described in Sec-15 had not been proved because
jurisdiction of the Commission was restricted to the cases
falling U/s 15 and nothing beyond that. In cases of
victimization for any reason, other than Trade Union
activities, the Hon’ble Commission would have no
jurisdiction. Reliance is placed on 1994 PLC 773, 1994 PLC
470, 1996 T.D. Labour 276, 1991 PLC 193, 1999 PLC 49 &
PLD 1988 SC 53.
9. That the respondent No. 3 is not liable to pay any benefit not
specified in staff agreement, therefore giving of free
electricity and medical facilities is not a responsibility of
respondent No. 3 as per clause 9 of the staff agreement.
Submitted by: -
RIAZ-UL-HASSAN MALIK,
Advocate High Court,
Counsel for respondent No. 3.
6-A, Ahsan Colony, Suraj Miani
Road, Multan.
Before the Hon’ble Member National Industrial Relations
Commission, Lahore.
Petition U/s 22-A (8) (g) read with Sec-22-B (3) of I.R.O. 1969.
Written Arguments on behalf of respondent
No. 3, Kot Addu Power Company Ltd.
Respectfully Sheweth: -
Brief facts giving rise to present case are that Kot Addu
Power Complex/Power Plant is owned by WAPDA. The Govt.
of Pakistan privatised the Complex by selling 26% of shares
in KAPCO to Strategic Investor & has agreed with Pakistan
WAPDA Hydro Electric Central Labour Union that WAPDA’s
regular employee at the Complex will be entitled to either opt
for employment with KAPCO or accept a voluntary severance
package as agreed in terms & conditions agreed between the
Privatisation Commission, Govt. of Pakistan & Pakistan
WAPDA Hydro Electric Central Labour Union (CBA)
applicable to WAPDA’s regular staff transferred with
WAPDA’s Thermal Power Stations and their privatisation
executed between G.O.P., WAPDA & WHECLU (the
“TERMS”). The staff agreement which was executed on
27.6.1996 and is Mark 6 on file is attached as ready reference
for this Hon’ble Court.
It is pertinent to mention here that the WAPDA
employees as is clear above, were given the option either to
accept employment with KAPCO or receive severance
package. The afore-said four petitioners accepted the
severance package i.e. Golden Shake Hand. The petitioners
received the amount of severance package. The agreement for
regular employees was executed on 27.6.1996, which is called
“Staff Agreement” and all those employees who opted to work
for KAPCO, are receiving their benefits according to this
agreement. Since the petitioners opted for severance package,
therefore, they do not stand entitled for any other benefits like
free electricity and medical facility as per clause 9 of Staff
Agreement 27.6.1996.
3. That the petitioners in the petition and also in the evidence did
not mention any act of victimization on account of trade union
activities falling under section 15 of I.R.O. of the part of
respondent No. 3. It is well-established law that Commission
could not exercise its powers available to it U/s 22-A (8) (g)
read with sec-22-B (3) of I.R.O. when unfair labour practice
as described in Sec-15 had not been proved because
jurisdiction of the Commission was restricted to the cases
falling U/s 15 and nothing beyond that. In cases of
victimization for any reason, other than Trade Union
activities, the Hon’ble Commission would have no
jurisdiction. Reliance is placed on 1994 PLC 773, 1994 PLC
470, 1996 T.D. Labour 276, 1991 PLC 193, 1999 PLC 49 &
PLD 1988 SC 53.
9. That the respondent No. 3 is not liable to pay any benefit not
specified in staff agreement, therefore giving of free electricity
and medical facilities is not a responsibility of respondent No. 3
as per clause 9 of the staff agreement.