1988 PLP 711 (PLC(CS))
GENERAL SECRETARY, HABIB BANK WORKERS FRONT NAROWAL ZONE and another Versus HABIB BANK WORKERS UNION SIALKOT and another
| Citation | 1988 PLP 711 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan hodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | GENERAL SECRETARY, HABIB BANK WORKERS FRONT NAROWAL ZONE and another Versus HABIB BANK WORKERS UNION SIALKOT and another |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 711 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 711 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan hodhi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 711 (PLC(CS)) (GENERAL SECRETARY, HABIB BANK WORKERS FRONT NAROWAL ZONE and another Versus HABIB BANK WORKERS UNION SIALKOT and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- H. R. Haider for Petitioners.
- Rana Muhammad Ashraf Chohan for Respondent No.l.
- Nazir Ahmed for Respondent No.2.
- Date of hearing: 14th March, 1988.
- 2. The facts are that respondent No.l union brought an application with the name and style of Habib Bank Limited Workers Union, Daska, Narowal and Sialkot Zones under section 34 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 challenging the registration of the petitioner union. The learned lower Court has entertained the petition and has accepted the petition of respondent No.l union for injunction. The registration certificate of respondent No.l union has been perused which shows that Habib Bank Limited Workers Union Sialkot District has been registered and not the Habib Bank Ltd. Workers Union Daska, Narowal and Sialkot Zones. Since no certified union brought application under section 34 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 it cannot be said that respondent No.l union has any arguable case. In these circumstances the stay order has been wrongly issued by the learned lower Court. Learned counsel for respondent No.l union has tried to argue that since according to the registration certificate the name and style of respondent No.l union is Habib Bank Ltd. Workers Union District Sialkot it includes all the Tehsils of District Sialkot including Daska and Narowal, the petition was competent. The position is not so. A union can come to the Court with that name and style for which it has been registered. If any union comes forward changing its name it cannot be said that a union which has been registered has come to the Court. The dispute between the‑parties is whether the petitioner union could be registered for Narowal Zone when respondent No.l union which is alleged to be for all the three Tehsils existed. This question could be examined only when some proper union with correct name and style and come to the Court.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss.34 & 38(3‑a)‑‑Application to Labour Court by Trade Union‑‑Union could come to Court with that name and style for which it had been registered‑‑Workers Union registered as Habib Bank Workers Union, coming to Labour Court seeking stay order against issuance of C.B.A. certificate to rival union registered as Habib Bank Workers Front‑ Applicant Union wrongly mentioning its name as Workers Union of a particular zone‑‑Labour Court passing stay order‑‑Order of Labour Court set aside in revision by Appellate Tribunal‑‑Held: Dispute between parties was whether rival union could be registered for a particular Zone when applicant union alleged by existed for all zones of the District and such question could be examined only when some proper union with correct name and style came to Court.
Judgment & Decree
H. R. Haider for Petitioners. Rana Muhammad Ashraf Chohan for Respondent No.l. Nazir Ahmed for Respondent No.2. Date of hearing: 14th March, 1988. This is a revision reporting that the order dated 18‑1‑1988 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.7, Gujranwala whereby issuance of C. B. A. certificate in favour of petitioner union has been stayed is reported to be without jurisdiction and of no legal effect.
2. The facts are that respondent No.l union brought an application with the name and style of Habib Bank Limited Workers Union, Daska, Narowal and Sialkot Zones under section 34 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 challenging the registration of the petitioner union. The learned lower Court has entertained the petition and has accepted the petition of respondent No.l union for injunction. The registration certificate of respondent No.l union has been perused which shows that Habib Bank Limited Workers Union Sialkot District has been registered and not the Habib Bank Ltd. Workers Union Daska, Narowal and Sialkot Zones. Since no certified union brought application under section 34 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 it cannot be said that respondent No.l union has any arguable case. In these circumstances the stay order has been wrongly issued by the learned lower Court. Learned counsel for respondent No.l union has tried to argue that since according to the registration certificate the name and style of respondent No.l union is Habib Bank Ltd. Workers Union District Sialkot it includes all the Tehsils of District Sialkot including Daska and Narowal, the petition was competent. The position is not so. A union can come to the Court with that name and style for which it has been registered. If any union comes forward changing its name it cannot be said that a union which has been registered has come to the Court. The dispute between the‑parties is whether the petitioner union could be registered for Narowal Zone when respondent No.l union which is alleged to be for all the three Tehsils existed. This question could be examined only when some proper union with correct name and style and come to the Court.
3. As a result the revision is accepted and setting aside the impugned order the application for interim stay is dismissed. A. E. /516/Lb.P Revision accepted.