1974 PLP 34 (PLC)
REGISTRAR, TRADE UNIONS, LYALLPUR Versus COLONY THAL TEXTILE MILLS WORKFRS' UNION, BHAKKAR
| Citation | 1974 PLP 34 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Court Punjab |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | REGISTRAR, TRADE UNIONS, LYALLPUR Versus COLONY THAL TEXTILE MILLS WORKFRS' UNION, BHAKKAR |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1974 PLP 34 (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 1974 PLP 34 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the 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: 1974 PLP 34 (PLC) (REGISTRAR, TRADE UNIONS, LYALLPUR Versus COLONY THAL TEXTILE MILLS WORKFRS' UNION, BHAKKAR). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shaukat Danyal for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 10‑‑Cancellation of registration
contravention of its constitution by Trade Union‑Failure to hold elections at time prescribed by Union's constitution‑Delay explained due to waiting for new Labour Policy‑No good ground for contra vention of constitution of Union‑Application of Registrar for cancellation of registration, in circumstances, granted. Sakhawat Ali in n person.
Judgment & Decree
Application No. 321 of 1972, decided on 15th September 1972.
S. 10‑‑Cancellation of registration
contravention of its constitution by Trade Union‑Failure to hold elections at time prescribed by Union's constitution‑Delay explained due to waiting for new Labour Policy‑No good ground for contra vention of constitution of Union‑Application of Registrar for cancellation of registration, in circumstances, granted. Shaukat Danyal for Petitioner. Sakhawat Ali in n person. The Registrar of Trade Unions, Sargodha Region, Lyallpur has moved tins application under section 10 of the I. R. U., 1969, with the prayer that a direction may be given to him to cancel the registration of the respondent Union, as it has contravened the provisions of its own constitution in that the elections of the office‑bearers of the Union were not held in the months of March and April, as provided in Article 10 (a) of the constitution of the respondent. In the reply statement, it is admitted that the elections of the office‑bearers were not held in the months of March and April. It is stated that the elections could not be held due to the fact that tire New Labour Policy was awaited. It is further submitted that the Union intended to hold elections in the month of July but was restrained from doing so by the order of the civil Court dated 22‑7‑
72. The fact that the New Labour Policy was being awaited was no ground to postpone the elections in contravention of Article 10 of the Constitution. An unattested copy of the stay order issued by the civil Court shows that the application in that Court was moved on 21‑7‑72 when the contravention had already been committed. Section 10 (ii) of the I. R. O. provides that the registration of a Trade Union shall be cancelled on the direction of the Labour Court if the Trade Union has contravened any of the provisions of its constitution. In the instant case r is admitted that the election were not held in the months of March and April as provided in Article 10 of the Union's constitution. The provisions A the constitution were therefore contravened. I therefore direct the Registrar to cancel the registration of the respondent‑Union.