1997 PLP 204 (PLC)
JAFFAR HUSSAIN and others Versus PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE and others
| Citation | 1997 PLP 204 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdul Hafeez Memon and Muhammad Ilyas, JJ |
| Parties | JAFFAR HUSSAIN and others Versus PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE and others |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIH of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP 204 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIH of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997 PLP 204 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Hafeez Memon and Muhammad Ilyas, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 PLP 204 (PLC) (JAFFAR HUSSAIN and others Versus PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Zaman Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 16th June, 1996.
- Muhammad Zaman Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment/order, dated 8-2-1996 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Writ Petition No. 2148/96).
3s. 2(xxviii) & 34
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)-- Petitioner's Union was approved by Registrar, Trade Unions
Labour Court, however, declared such approval being invalid on ground that petitioners were not workmen
Labour Appellate Tribunal affirmed finding of Labour Court
Petitioners' Constitutional petition against decisions of Labour Forums was also dismissed by High Court
Leave to appeal was granted to consider petitioners' contention that in view of definition of "worker" and "workmen", Courts below were in error in holding that petitioners were not workmen and that evidence brought on record in that connection showing petitioners to be workmen, was not duly considered by Courts below; and that application filed by employer before Labour Court under S. 34, National Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was not maintainable in law.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL HAFEEZ MEMON, J.‑‑‑The petitioners' employees of respondent No. 5, Milk Pak Limited, were elected as representatives of workers of "Employees' Union Milk Pak Ltd." approved by respondent No.3, Registrar of Trade Unions, Lahore.
2. Respondent No. 5, the employer, filed any application under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, before the Labour Court for declaring the approval by respondent No. 3 as invalid, on the ground that the petitioners were not workmen but were supervisors and, as such, could not be elected as representatives of the workmen of the said . Union.
3. The learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court granted the application by his order dated 14‑2‑1995, which was maintained by the Labour Appellate Tribunal, and the writ petition filed by the petitioners against the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal was also dismissed in limine.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in view of the definition of the worker and workman under section 2(28) of I.R.O., 1969, the learned Courts below were in error in holding that the petitioners were not workman, and that the evidence brought on record in this connection showing the petitioners to be workman, was not duly considered by the p Courts below. Learned counsel further contended that the said application filed by respondent No. 5 before the Labour Court, under section 34 of LR.O., 1969, was not maintainable in law and the Courts below erred in holding that the same was maintainable in the said circumstances, which were contrary to the record.
5. The contentions raised by the learned counsel require consideration. Accordingly, we grant leave to consider the above contentions. A.A./J‑151/S Leave granted.