1989 PLC 235 (PLP)
LAHORE CYCLE INDUSTRIES WORKERS UNION CBA) Versus REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS, LAHORE REGION, LAHORE
| Citation | 1989 PLC 235 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan, Appellate tribunal |
| Parties | LAHORE CYCLE INDUSTRIES WORKERS UNION CBA) Versus REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS, LAHORE REGION, LAHORE |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLC 235 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLC 235 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan, Appellate tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLC 235 (PLP) (LAHORE CYCLE INDUSTRIES WORKERS UNION CBA) Versus REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS, LAHORE REGION, LAHORE). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- H.R. Haider for Petitioner. a Date of hearing: 4th August, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 34 & 38(3-a) Revision
Scope In revision correctness and propriety of order is to be seen Management challenging competence of Trade Union regarding participation in referendum on plea that same was a third union and could be registered only if membership thereof was 25% or more‑‑Management alongwith its application under S. 34 praying for interim stay‑‑Application for interim stay dismissed‑‑Such order of Labour Court sought to be revised before. Labour Appellate Tribunal on plea that some members of the union were no longer in service‑‑Documents in support of such plea not produced before Labour Court‑‑Order of Labour Court, held, was justified‑‑Interference in revision was refused by Tribunal with observation that since main application was still pending petitioner could again request for stay order after improving his case.
Judgment & Decree
Petition No. LHR of 1987, decided on 4th August, 1987.
Ss. 34 & 38(3-a) Revision
Scope In revision correctness and propriety of order is to be seen Management challenging competence of Trade Union regarding participation in referendum on plea that same was a third union and could be registered only if membership thereof was 25% or more‑‑Management alongwith its application under S. 34 praying for interim stay‑‑Application for interim stay dismissed‑‑Such order of Labour Court sought to be revised before. Labour Appellate Tribunal on plea that some members of the union were no longer in service‑‑Documents in support of such plea not produced before Labour Court‑‑Order of Labour Court, held, was justified‑‑Interference in revision was refused by Tribunal with observation that since main application was still pending petitioner could again request for stay order after improving his case. H.R. Haider for Petitioner. a Date of hearing: 4th August, 1987. The order dated 29‑7‑1987 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.2, Lahore is reported to be wrong and whereby the application for interim stay was dismissed.
2. The petitioner brought an application under 4section 34 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 challenging the competency of Employees Union and requested that it could not participate in the referendum. The ground taken up is that since it was a third union it could be registered if the memberships was 25% or more. It has been argued placing copies of full and final settlement Annexures D, E, F, that three persons took away their dues and ceased to remain employees of the establishment. These documents are not copies certified by the learned lower Court, therefore, it does not appear that these documents were placed before the said Court. In the impugned order there is no mention of these documents which further shows that these documents were not on the record of the learned lower Court when the petition was decided. In revision, correctness and propriety of the order is to be seen. Since these documents were not before the learned lower Court the order appears to be justified. However, since the main case is pending the petitioner after improving his case may again under the changed circumstances ask the Court for a stay order and the learned lower Court after considering the case may dispose of the same.
3. As a result the revision fan's and is dismissed in limine. A.E./405/Lb. P. Revision dismissed.