1984 PLP 1319 (PLC(CS))
NATIONAL WORKERS' UNION (C.B.A.) NATIONAL SILK AND RAYON MILLS, FAISALABAD Versus NATIONAL SILK MILLS LABOUR UNION AND ANOTHER
| Citation | 1984 PLP 1319 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | NATIONAL WORKERS' UNION (C.B.A.) NATIONAL SILK AND RAYON MILLS, FAISALABAD Versus NATIONAL SILK MILLS LABOUR UNION AND ANOTHER |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 1319 (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 1984 PLP 1319 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 1319 (PLC(CS)) (NATIONAL WORKERS' UNION (C.B.A.) NATIONAL SILK AND RAYON MILLS, FAISALABAD Versus NATIONAL SILK MILLS LABOUR UNION AND ANOTHER). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- H. R. Haider for Petitioner.
- S. M. Arif for Respondent No. 1.
- Agha Qurban Ali, A. D. for Respondent No. 2.
- Date of hearing : 4th March, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
‑Ss. 10 & 11‑Registration of Union‑Appeal before Labour Court against order of Registrar cancelling registration‑Rival Union applying for being impleaded‑Rival Union, held, not necessary party and matter being between appellant Union and Registrar order of Labour Court rejecting application of rival Union, held, not suffered from any illegality and upheld in revision by Appellate Tribunal‑Revision Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 38 (3‑a).
Judgment & Decree
H. R. Haider for Petitioner. S. M. Arif for Respondent No.
1. Agha Qurban Ali, A. D. for Respondent No.
2. Date of hearing : 4th March, 1984. The revision captioned above gives information that the order, dated 4th May, 1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad is not legal.
2. The facts are that the petitioner union became C. B. A. in the refer endum held on 2nd May, 1983 in which 82 persons voted and the petitioner secured 68 votes. Before the referendum was held, the registration of respondent No. 1 union had been cancelled on 23rd February, 1983. Res pondent No. 1, therefore; appealed to the Labour Court and the case was remanded for proper enquiry and re-decision of the question. After holding enquiry again, the registration of the union was cancelled by the Registrar. Respondent No. 1 union again appealed to the Labour Court. The petitioner union applied for being impleaded as a party but the said petition was dismissed and the registration of respondent No. t union was restored. The said decision has been challenged as illegal.
3. It has been argued that the petitioner union was a necessary party, so the learned lower Court erred in dismissing its petition. It has also been argued that the members of respondent No. 1 union made statements before Registrar that the union did not exist. This is wrong that the petitioner union was necessary party. The matter was between the Registrar an respondent No. 1 union and the petitioner union had no concern with it. The learned lower Court did not commit any illegality in rejecting the application of the petitioner for impleading it as a party in the appeal pre ferred by respondent No. 1 union. So far as the second point is concerned that the members of respondent No. 1 union made statements before the Registrar that respondent No. 1 did not exist, the record of the Registrar has been perused. The statements of only 13 such persons were recorded who are mentioned as members of respondent No. 1 union. The total number of members of respondent No. 1 union is 50, so the statements of at least 26 members of respondent No. 1 union should have been recorded. If 26 members out of 50 had deposed that respondent No. 1 union did not exist, of course, there could have been jurisdiction for its cancellation. The learned lower Court in these circumstances was justified in accepting the appeal of respondent No. I and in restoring its registration. The impugned order does not suffer from any material legal infirmity for which exercise of suo motu revisional powers may be considered necessary,
4. As a result, the revision is dismissed. A. E. Appeal dismissed,