1976 PLP 889(1) (PLC(CS))
MANAGING DIRECTOR, GHULAM HOSIERY No.1 Versus REGISTRAR, LABOUR UNIONS
| Citation | 1976 PLP 889(1) (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | IIIrd Labour Court Punjab |
| Bench Members | Saeed Ahmad, Presiding Officer |
| Parties | MANAGING DIRECTOR, GHULAM HOSIERY No.1 Versus REGISTRAR, LABOUR UNIONS |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1976 PLP 889(1) (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1976 PLP 889(1) (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the IIIrd Labour Court Punjab bench comprising: Saeed Ahmad, Presiding Officer.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1976 PLP 889(1) (PLC(CS)) (MANAGING DIRECTOR, GHULAM HOSIERY No.1 Versus REGISTRAR, LABOUR UNIONS). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A. M. Khan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 22(1) & 34-Collective Bargaining Agent-One Labour Union declared by Registrar as Collective Bargaining Agent for two separate establishments-Employer contending that it could not act as such for both establishments-Contention rejected and Labour Court, held, could not interfere with functions of Registrar.
Judgment & Decree
Application No. 9 of 1975, decided on 28th January 1975. -- Ss. 22(1) & 34-Collective Bargaining Agent-One Labour Union declared by Registrar as Collective Bargaining Agent for two separate establishments-Employer contending that it could not act as such for both establishments-Contention rejected and Labour Court, held, could not interfere with functions of Registrar. A. M. Khan for Petitioner. This is an application under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The petitioner is Muhammad Iqbal, Managing Director, Ghulam Hosiery No.1, Lyallpur. The respondents are the General Secretary of the Labour Union and the Assistant Director Labour Welfare. Ghulam Hosiery was registered as a factory under the Factories Act 1934, in March 1971. It is alleged that it was bifurcated into two units known as Ghulam Hosiery No.1 and No.
2. The workers of both the units formed one Union known as Ghulam Hosiery Labour Union. On 6th January, 1975 a demand notice was served on the employer by the General Secretary of the Union and on 18th January, 1975 a strike notice was also served on the employer. After these notices the Assistant Director, Labour Welfare, took up conciliation proceedings. The grievance of the employer is that one' Union cannot be termed as C. B. A. in respect of two factories. The contention has no force. Under section 22(1) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, the Registrar of Trade Union is competent to declare one Union as C.B.A. of one establish ment or group of establishments. In the present case the Registrar declared the Labour Union as C.B.A. for a group of establishments known as Ghulam Hosiery. The Labour Court is not competent to interfere into the function of the Registrar. The petition does not disclose any cause of action. Accordingly, it is hereby dismissed.