2000 PLP 645 (PLC)

Nemo for Respondent No.

1. Date of hearing: 2nd September, 1999 This is a revision application under section 38(3‑a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, filed by the applicant Union, challenging the order, dated 25‑10‑1997 passed by the Registrar, rejecting the application of the applicant union. Aggrieved of the said order, the applicant union filed an appeal under section 8(3) of I.R.O., 1969 to the Labour Court No.5, which was also rejected by the Labour Court by order, dated 24‑12‑1997, observing that," I therefore, hold that the respondent No. 1 has rightly rejected the application of registration of the appellant union on the ground that they are not enjoying 1/5th or 20% membership as required under section 7(2)(b) of I.R.O., 1969. Findings accordingly".

2. The matter was taken up for regular hearing as long back as early 1998, but was adjourned to 17‑8‑1998 on the ground that the applicant's representative was not feeling well. On 2‑2‑1999, at was again got adjourned on the ground that Mr. Saleem Raza, representative of the applicant was sick. On 14‑5‑1999, however, Wazir Khan, General Secretary of the applicant union withdrew the authority, granted to. Mr. Saleem Raza. The case was, thus, adjourned to 2‑9‑1999 i.e today. It appears that Mr. Saleem Raza, representative of applicant, has been absent on many dates of hearing. As such, I have no alternative but to hear Mr. Mahmood A. Ghani, learned counsel for respondents Nos.2 and 3 and the appellant's General Secretary.

3. Mr. Mehmood A. Ghani submits that in term of section 37(4) save as otherwise expressly provided in this Ordinance, all decisions of, and all sentences passed by a Labour Court, shall be final and shall not be called in question in any manner by or before any Court or other ‑authority. On the anology of the above provision he, therefore, submits that the order in appeal has been passed by the learned Labour Court, it was not open to the applicant union to reagitate the case on the same facts and law, which amounts nothing but second appeal by invoking the revisional jurisdiction of the Court. Reliance has been placed on the case reported as Munawar Ahmad .v. The Sindh Provincial Cooperative Bank Ltd., Hyderabad (1981 PLC 344) by Mr. Justice (Retd.) Z.A. Channa, the then Chairman of this Tribunal, which goes to fully support his submissions. He also relied upon a Supreme Court case reported as The National and Grindlays Bank Employees' Federation v. National and Grindlays Bank Limited, Karachi (NLR 1983 Labour p. 37), which, inter alia, provide that. "Moreover, section 50, will on the principle of generalis specialibus non derogant yield to the particular provision in section 37(4) which in the given circumstances confers finality on the decision of the Labour Court". Lastly he placed reliance on a case reported as Fateh Muhammad v. Registrar, Trade Unions and another (1991 PLC page 158) wherein it was held as under:‑‑ ...... The fact whether the membership of second respondent on the date of registration was less than the minimum number of the members required by clause (b) of subsection (2) of section 7 of the Ordinance is a question of fact which must be adjudicated upon by the Labour Court after due Notice to the parties and/or examining or recording the necessary evidence. I am of the humble opinion that this contention would not be proper subject‑matter of proceedings under Article 199 of the Constitution. As I am to full agreement with the reasons given in the said judgment, I do not propose of supporting the view taken by me in the judgment reported in 1990 PLC 351." The above law was laid down by a Division Bench of the Sindh High Court, which is binding on me.

4. In any case, the finding of the Registrar that the union does not comply with the condition, laid down in law, which was concurred with by the learned Labour Court. So there is a concurrent finding of fact, which should not be interfered with in revision by the. Tribunal. The revision application, therefore, has no force, which is dismissed accordingly. Announced in open Court, this the 2nd day of September, 1999. H.B.T./334/K (Lab. Trib.) Revision dismissed.