1998 PLP 565 (SCMR)
Present: Abdul Hafeez Memon and Muhammad 11yas, JJ JAFFAR HUSSAIN and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE and
| Citation | 1998 PLP 565 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdul Hafeez Memon and Muhammad 11yas, JJ JAFFAR HUSSAIN and others‑‑‑Petitioners |
| Parties | Present: Abdul Hafeez Memon and Muhammad 11yas, JJ JAFFAR HUSSAIN and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE and |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 565 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 565 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Hafeez Memon and Muhammad 11yas, JJ JAFFAR HUSSAIN and others‑‑‑Petitioners.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 565 (SCMR) (Present: Abdul Hafeez Memon and Muhammad 11yas, JJ JAFFAR HUSSAIN and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE and). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- 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.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment/order, dated 8‑2‑1996, of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Writ Petition No.2148 of 1996). ‑‑‑‑Ss. 2(xxviii) & 34‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Petitioners' 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‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider petitioners' contention that in view of definition of "worker" and "workman", Courts below were in error in holding that petitioners were not workmen and that evidenee 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, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was not maintainable in law. Muhammad Zaman Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court Instructed by S.
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 an application under section 34 of 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 workmen, and that the evidence brought on record in this connection showing the petitioners to be workman, was not duly considered by the Courts below. Learned counsel further contended that the said application filed by respondent No.5 before the Labour Court, under section 34 of I.R.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