1978 PLP 296 (PLC)
REGISTRAR, TRADE UNIONS LAHORE Versus BORING STAFF UNION
| Citation | 1978 PLP 296 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Ist Labour Court Punjab |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | REGISTRAR, TRADE UNIONS LAHORE Versus BORING STAFF UNION |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1978 PLP 296 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1978 PLP 296 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Ist Labour Court Punjab bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1978 PLP 296 (PLC) (REGISTRAR, TRADE UNIONS LAHORE Versus BORING STAFF UNION). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- H. R. Haidar for Petitioner.
- Habib Ullah, General Secretary for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 8 read with S. 1(3)‑‑Application of Ordinance‑‑Employees of Agricultural Engineering Department‑‑Held, "persons employed in administration of State"‑Provisions of Ordinance not applicable to such employees and they cannot form a Trade Union‑Registration of Union ordered to be cancelled.
Judgment & Decree
S. 8 read with S. 1(3)‑‑Application of Ordinance‑‑Employees of Agricultural Engineering Department‑‑Held, "persons employed in administration of State"‑Provisions of Ordinance not applicable to such employees and they cannot form a Trade Union‑Registration of Union ordered to be cancelled. H. R. Haidar for Petitioner. Habib Ullah, General Secretary for Respondent. The Registrar of Trade Unions, Lahore Region, Lahore, has brought the under‑consideration application under section 10 of I. R. O., 1969, seeking can cellation of the registration of the respondent Union viz. Boring Stag Union, Mahakama Zaraat Engineering Lahore Division. It has been alleged by the Registrar that the respondent‑Union has been formed by the Employees of the Agricultural, Engineering Department and the said employees are employed in the Administration of State within the meaning of section 1(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. They are therefore not covered by I. R. O. and cannot from a Trade Union under the said Ordinance. Respondent Union resisted the petition but did not categorically deny that the employees of the Agricultural Engineering Department were employed in the administration of state. Some irrelevant objections have been raised and Supreme Court Judgment, which has no relevancy to the matter under consideration has been referred. The Registrar has produced a copy of the judgment of the N. I. R. C. in the case Agricultural Engineering Employees' Union v. Ghulam Rasul. In this case it has beets hold that persons employed in the Agricultural Engineering Department were in the administra tion of the State and were not covered by the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. In view of the above it is concluded that the members of the responder Union being the employee, of the Agricultural Engineering Department are persons employed in the administration of the State within the meaning of section 1(3) .of the I. R. O, 1969, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, is therefore, not applicable to such employees and they cannot form Trade Union under the said Ordinance. The under consideration petition is accordingly accepted, and it is directed that the registration of the respondent Union be cancelled.