1989 PLP 452 (PLC)
BADARUDDIN, GENERAL SECRETARY, WORKERS' UNION Versus PARTNERS and 2 others of Abasin International, Dhabeji
| Citation | 1989 PLP 452 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | National Industrial Relations Commission |
| Bench Members | Abdul Aziz Memon, Member |
| Parties | BADARUDDIN, GENERAL SECRETARY, WORKERS' UNION Versus PARTNERS and 2 others of Abasin International, Dhabeji |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 452 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 452 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the National Industrial Relations Commission bench comprising: Abdul Aziz Memon, Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 452 (PLC) (BADARUDDIN, GENERAL SECRETARY, WORKERS' UNION Versus PARTNERS and 2 others of Abasin International, Dhabeji). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- 2. Mr. M. Bashir Awan, Advocate for the accused submits that registration of the complainant union as CBA by Registrar of Trade Unions, Hyderabad was challenged before Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi who by its order dated 6‑7‑1988 had granted stay with the result that the order of registration of complainant union became ineffective the moment the stay order was passed. The complainant was as such debarred from acting as C B A till disposal of the appeal. A copy of application for stay and order passed thereon by Surd Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi, has been placed on record.
- 5. Mr. Ali Ahmed, Advocate seems to have conveniently ignored the fact that although the orders are not binding on this Commission, the same are binding on the parties to the case in which the orders are passed by the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal.
- 7. Having disposed of the two preliminary objections of Mr. Ali Ahmed, Advocate, the next question for consideration would be the effect of the order of Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, on these proceedings.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Industrial dispute‑‑ ‑‑‑"Stay order"‑‑Temporary injunction"‑‑Distinction‑‑Stay order comes into effect the moment it is passed whereas injunction order takes effect on service upon party concerned. (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ ‑‑‑Ss. 8, 14, 15 & 22‑B‑‑Unfair labour practice‑‑Complaint for‑‑Locus standi‑ Workers Union filing complaint against employer before National Industrial Relations Commission‑‑Registration of Union as CBA challenged before Labour Appellate Tribunal with prayer for (i) stay and direction to Registrar not to give effect to his order of registration and (ii) direction to complainant union not to act as CBA pending final decision of appeal before Appellate Tribunal‑‑Prayer already granted by Appellate Tribunal‑‑Contentions that (i) order of Labour Appellate Tribunal was not binding upon NIRC and (ii) stay order passed by Appellate Tribunal having not been served upon complainant union complaint filed by it could legitimately be continued and stay and injunction orders are synonymous and produce same results and (iii) a registered trade union being a body corporate by name under which registered shall be competent to sue or be sued by such name as envisaged by S. 14 repelled and complaint dismissed as incompetent‑‑Held: Order of Labour Appellate Tribunal though not binding on NIRC same ws binding on parties to case‑‑Stay order comes into effect the moment it is passed hence registration of complainant union stood suspended as soon as Appellate Tribunal passed stay order and complaint filed thereafter was not competent‑‑Union which is not registered or whose registration had been suspended could not sue as such under S.
14. Haji Khalil v. Javed Ahmed 1983 S C M R 869 rel. Complainant in person. M. Bashir Awan for Accused.
Judgment & Decree
(i) That the order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal is not binding on this Commission; and (ii) That stay order having not been served upon complainant the complaint was competently filed and can be legitimately continued. In his submission stay and injunction' are synonymous and produce same effect.
5. Mr. Ali Ahmed, Advocate seems to have conveniently ignored the fact that although the orders are not binding on this Commission, the same are binding on the parties to the case in which the orders are passed by the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal.
6. The contention of Mr. Ali Ahmed, about synonymity of `stay' and `Injunction', is also devoid of substance. The stay order comes into effect the moment it is passed whereas the order of injunction takes effect on service on the party concerned. If an authority be needed reference may be had to Haji Khalil v. Javed Ahmed (1983 S C M R 869) Wherein it was held: "Stay order takes effect from time it is passed, irrespective of fact whether or not it has been served on person concerned."
7. Having disposed of the two preliminary objections of Mr. Ali Ahmed, Advocate, the next question for consideration would be the effect of the order of Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, on these proceedings.
8. Representative for the complainant has not disputed genuineness of the copy of orders of the Labour Appellate Tribunal produced by the accused. The accused had applied to the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi for stay in the following terms: "that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to grant stay and direct the Registrar of Trade Unions, Hyderabad not to give effect to his order of registration of respondent No. 1 union and also direction be issued to respondent No. 1 union not to act as CBA till such time as the above appeal is decided by this Hon'ble Tribunal." On this application the learned Tribunal passed the following order: 6th JulL1988. Heard Mr. Mehmood Ghani. The order arprayed. Sd/‑ Appellate Tribunal.
9. The contents of above application for stay show that it envisaged two orders of different nature. The first one was to have the effect 'of certificate of registration issued by Registrar of Trade Unions, Hyderabad stayed; and the second one was in the nature of injunction restraining the Complainant from the acting as CBA. The Tribunal granted both the prayers.
10. It would thus appear that while the portion of order granting injunction would take effect from the date of service on the petitioner, the order‑ of stay regarding certificate of registration issued by the Registrar of Trade Unions took effect as soon as it was passed. The complaint was filed on '9‑7 X1988 when complainant's certificate of registration was already under suspension. The complaint was therefore incompetently filed and merits dismissal out‑right.
11. Mr. Ali Ahmed, next contended that every registered Trade Union shall be body corporate by the name under which it is registered and shall be competent to sue or be sued by the said name as envisaged by section 14 of the I.R.O. Since this union is registered it can sue as such.
12. From the complaint it appears that the union was formed on 11‑3‑1988. Thereafter General Secretary of the union applied for registration on 16‑3‑1988 before the Registrar of Trade Unions, Hyderabad but sent written intimation of the formation of the union to the accused on 4‑4‑1988. Immediately thereafter the incidents mentioned in the body of the petition are alleged to have taken place. It thus appears that the application for registration filed by the General Secretary on 16‑3‑1988 was not only an application for registration of the union, but there being no other union in the establishment, it was also meant to be for registration as CBA. There is no proof that union was registered otherwise. A union which is not registered or whose certificate of registration has been suspended, cannot sue as such union under section 14 of the‑1R0. 1969. For the reasons stated above the complaint is dismissed as incompetent. A.E./137/NIRC Complaint dismissed.