1998 PLP 162 (PLC)

Ss. 5, 8, 10 & 34

Application for registration of trade union-- Cancellation of proceedings

Application filed by trade union for its registration was marked by Registrar, Trade Unions to Enquiry Officer for enquiry and report

Officer concerned made enquiry in the matter accordingly and found application of trade union legal and competent, but before any order could be passed by Registrar, on such application of the trade union in the light of enquiry report of Officer concerned, employer filed petition before Labour Court under S. 34 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for annulling proceedings conducted in the matter

Petition filed by employer under S. 34 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was premature as at the time it was filed, Registrar, Trade Unions had not granted the requisite certificate of registration to trade union

Employer should have waited for the final decision of Registrar, Trade Unions on the report of Enquiry Officer concerned as it was open to Registrar, Trade Unions either to accept the report of Enquiry Officer or to discard it-- Enquiry conducted by Enquiry Officer otherwise being elaborate and exhaustive and employer having failed to show any defect in that, same could not be interfered with in appeal. Muhammad Anwar Khan for Appellant. Muhammad Ashraf Khan for Respondent No.

3. The appellant is aggrieved of the order dated 12-4-1994 by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Mardan whereby the petition of the petitioner-appellant under section 34 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 in respect of the cancellation of the proceedings relating to registration of respondent No. 3 was dismissed. The relevant facts are that respondent No.3 applied for registration to respondent No. 1 which was marked by the latter to respondent No. 2 for enquiry and report. Respondent No. 2 made enquiry in the matter and found the application legal and competent. However, before any order could be passed on this application the petitioner-appellant moved the Labour Court for annulling the proceedings conducted in the matter. The learned Labour Court held that the proceedings conducted by respondent in enquiry suffer from no defect and, therefore, respondent No. 1 could not be prevented from implementing the enquiry report. I heard both the sides and went through the relevant record. The petition under section 34 of the I.R.O. was rather immature as at the time it was filed respondent No. 1 had not granted the requisite certificate of registration. In the application under section 34 only the acts done and the proceedings conducted were challenged. The petitioner appellant should have waited for the final decision of respondent No. 1 on the report of the Enquiry Officer as it was open to him either to accept the report or to discard it. The proceedings in the Labour Court were, thus, premature. In any case the enquiry conducted by respondent No. 2 is elaborate and exhaustive and no defect could be shown by the appellant which may justify interference in appeal. This appeal is without merit and is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. Civil Miscellaneous also stands disposed of accordingly. H.B.T./217/Lb./N.-W.F.P. Appeal dismissed.