1989 PLP 457 (PLC)
PAKISTAN WAREHOUSE CARRIERS WORKERS' UNION and others Versus REGISTRAR, TRADE UNIONS and others
| Citation | 1989 PLP 457 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi High Court |
| Bench Members | Mamoon Kazi, J |
| Parties | PAKISTAN WAREHOUSE CARRIERS WORKERS' UNION and others Versus REGISTRAR, TRADE UNIONS and others |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 457 (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 1989 PLP 457 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi High Court bench comprising: Mamoon Kazi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 457 (PLC) (PAKISTAN WAREHOUSE CARRIERS WORKERS' UNION and others Versus REGISTRAR, TRADE UNIONS and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shaikh Haider for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent No. 1.
- Suleman Habibullah for Respondent No. 2.
- Raja Shamsuz‑Zaman for Respondent No. 3.
- Barkat Ahmad Arain for Respondent No. 5.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 8‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑Election to offices of Trade Union‑‑Registrar having obligation to hold election is to be guided by his own discretion in such matter‑‑Registrar has to verify whether persons who are to cast their votes at election were members of Union‑‑Registrar's finding in such matters would not be open to interim restraint by High Court during pendency of Constitutional petition relating to holding of elections.
Judgment & Decree
This petition was admitted on 8‑5‑1988, as it was contended by the petitioner that the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 who were strangers to the petitioner union had erroneously been held by the learned Vth Sind Labour Court as not to have been strangers. On 29‑5‑1988, the respondent No. 5 by an interim order was directed to resolve the controversy as to which then the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were the members of the petitioner union not and thereafter the respondent No: 5 was further directed to approve the list of voters in accordance with the law and then hold elections of the office‑bearers of the union within 4 weeks of the passing of the order. Now the date for the _Section has been fixed as 2‑7‑1988. The petitioner, through this application, seeks permission to restrain the respondent No. 5 from taking into consideration the list of the members of the union supplied by the respondents No.1 and
2. The main ground of attack of Mr. Shaikh Haider, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that, according to an order passed by the respondent No. 5, the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 had been held to be non‑members and consequently they have no locus standi to supply list of members to the respondent No.
5. It may be pointed out that the argument of Mr. Shaikh Haider is not supported by any legal provision. It may be further pointed out that holding of elections is an obligation, which the respondent No. 5 has to discharge purely by using his own discretion in the matter. The respondent No. 5 has to verify whether the persons, who had to cast their votes at the elections are members of the union or not. This according to Mr. Barkat Ahmad Arain, who represents the respondent No. 5, has already been done and according to him, no person, who is not a member of the petitioner union, will be permitted to vote at the elections of the office‑bearers. The undertaking given by Mr. Barkat Ahmad Arain, in my opinion, is sufficient to satisfy the petitioner that no non‑member will be permitted to take part in the elections. Consequently, I find no reason to grant the interim order as prayed in, the application and the application is dismissed. A.A./P‑91/K Application dismissed.