1979 PLP 37 (PLC)
WORKERS UNION COLONY WOOLLEN MILLS LTD., MULTAN Versus REGISTRAR, TRADE UNIONS, MULTAN REGION, MULTAN
| Citation | 1979 PLP 37 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | WORKERS UNION COLONY WOOLLEN MILLS LTD., MULTAN Versus REGISTRAR, TRADE UNIONS, MULTAN REGION, MULTAN |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1979 PLP 37 (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 1979 PLP 37 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1979 PLP 37 (PLC) (WORKERS UNION COLONY WOOLLEN MILLS LTD., MULTAN Versus REGISTRAR, TRADE UNIONS, MULTAN REGION, MULTAN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Naeem Sultan Butt for Appellant.
- Khalid Nasir, Deputy Director, Labour for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 3rd August 1978.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑ S. 10(1)(iii) read with Ss. 67, 1(a) & (2)(a), Trade Unions Act (XVI of 1926) and Vest Pakistan Trade Unions Ordinance (V of 1968), S. 55 Act XVI of 1926 repealed by Ordinance V of 1968 and Ordinance V of 1968 repealed by Ordinance XXVIII of 1969‑Section 67(2)(a) of Ordinance XXIII of 1969 saving every Trade Union registered under any such law and existing immediately before commencement of Ordinance and deeming same to be registered under Ordinance XXIII of 1969, original constitution submitted by appellant Union under Act XVI of 1976, held, deemed to be in force until altered or rescinded‑Section 10(1)(iii) of Ordinance of 1969, held further, comes into play only when Trade Union makes any provision inconsistent with such Ordinance or rules after its registration and no such allegation having been made complaint not competent.
Judgment & Decree
(iii) In Article 12 a reference has been made to Trade Unions Act which has since been repealed. (iv) The purposes for which the general funds of the Union shall be applicable have not been mentioned as required under section 7(i)(c) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
3. The learned Labour Court accepted the complaint and passed an order for the cancellation of the registration of the appellant‑Union.
4. Aggrieved by the above decision, Workers Union Colony Woollen Mills Limited, appellant has preferred this appeal.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the constitu tion of the Union, which was submitted at the time of its registration was in accordance with the provisions of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and its constitution was saved and shall continue to be in force until altered or rescinded.
6. The Trade Unions Act, 1926 was repealed by section 55 of W. P. Trade Unions Ordinance, V of 1968. Subsection (2) of section 55 reads as under Notwithstanding the repeal of this Act‑
(a) Every Trade Union existing at the time of the coming into force of this Ordinance, which was required under the said Act, shall be deemed to be registered under this Ordinance and its rules shall, so far as the same are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, continue in force until altered or rescinded. (b)
7. Vide section 67(1)(d) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, the W. P. Trade Unions Ordinance, 1968 was repealed. Section 67(2)(a). of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 provides that every Trade Union existing immediately before the commencement of this Ordinance, which was registered under any such law shall be deemed to be registered under this Ordinance and its constitution shall continue in force until altered or rescinded.
8. From the above, it is clear that the original constitution submitted by the appellant‑Union under Trade Unions Act, 1926 at the time o its registration shall even now be deemed to be in force until altered or rescinded. 1n other words, the constitution of the appellant‑Union has been saved.
9. Moreover, section 10(1)(iii) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 only comes into play when the Trade Union, after having been registered, makes any provision, which is inconsistent with this Ordinance or the rules. There is no such allegation by the respondent that the appellant Union, after its registration, had made any provision, which was inconsistent with this Ordinance or the rules. Therefore, the complaint under section 10(1)(iii) was in any case not competent.
10. The case of the respondent was to the effect that the constitution of the appellant‑Union already framed contravened the provisions of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and, therefore, it was rightly ordered to be deregistered. This contention has no force, because of what has been mentioned above, the original constitution of the appellant‑Union shall even now be deemed to be in force until altered or rescinded by the Union itself.
11. In any case in view of section 9 of Industrial Relations Ordi nance, 1969 when once a Trade Union has been registered, it is a conclusive proof that the Union has been duly registered under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Therefore, its Constitution cannot now be changed.
12. I, accordingly, accept the appeal, set aside the decision of the Lahour Court and dismiss the complaint filed by the respondent. Complaint dismissed.