1998 PLP 25 (PLC)
SIKANDAR PANHWAR, GENERAL SECRETARY, LABOUR UNION INDUS JUTE MILLS LTD., DHABEJI, THATTA Versus PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT NO. VI, HYDERABAD and 3 others
| Citation | 1998 PLP 25 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | SIKANDAR PANHWAR, GENERAL SECRETARY, LABOUR UNION INDUS JUTE MILLS LTD., DHABEJI, THATTA Versus PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT NO. VI, HYDERABAD and 3 others |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 25 (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 1998 PLP 25 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 25 (PLC) (SIKANDAR PANHWAR, GENERAL SECRETARY, LABOUR UNION INDUS JUTE MILLS LTD., DHABEJI, THATTA Versus PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT NO. VI, HYDERABAD and 3 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing: 8th December, 1996
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 10 & 38
Rival union filed application before Labour Court seeking directions to Registrar of Trade Unions to refrain from issuing Registration Certificate to Labour Union returned in the elections on account of certain irregularities committed by Registrar, Trade Unions
Labour Court accepting application of rival trade union suspended Registration Certificate issued to returned labour union and issued stay order as well
No provision of law existed for proceeding against Registrar on application of a rival union before Labour Court-- Aggrieved/rival union first should have approached Registrar of Trade Unions for cancellation of Registration Certificate of returned Labour Union and Registrar of Trade Unions could file a complaint in writing before Labour Court under S. 10 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 pointing out contravention of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969
Stay order granted by Labour Court for cancellation of registration of union being in contravention of S. 10 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was set aside by Appellate Tribunal in circumstances. Rana Mehmood Ali Khan, Representative for Applicant. Mehboob Rizvi for the Management. Pir Bux, General Secretary for the Mehnatkash Union. Nadir Khan Yousufzai for Registrar of Trade Unions.
Judgment & Decree
Mehboob Rizvi for the Management. Pir Bux, General Secretary for the Mehnatkash Union. Nadir Khan Yousufzai for Registrar of Trade Unions. Date of hearing: 8th December, 1996 An application was presented before Labour Court No. VI, Hyderabad by Indus Jute Mills Mehnatkash Union that the Registrar of Trade Unions may be directed to refrain from issuing Registration Certificate to Labour Union Indus Jute Mills Dhabeji on the ground that the Registrar had held peacemeal enquiry. The learned Labour Court passed an order that since the enquiry was conducted by the Registrar three times, it was an illegal enquiry and he accordingly suspended the Registration Certificate till 25-11-1996. Notice was issued to the other side. On 25-11-1996 the stay order application was extended until disposal of the petition. Against both these orders the General Secretary Indus Jute Mills Labour Union Dhabeji has filed this Revision Application under section 38 of the I.R.O., 1969.
2. Under section 10 of the I.R.O. it is only upon a complaint in writing made by the Registrar that the Trade Unions has contravened any law or provisions of the constitution of the Union or framed the constitution consistent with the I.R.O. that the registration can be challenged. In this case there is complaint from the Registrar but the C.B.A. Union has moved an application against the Registrar and the new union of Dhabeji its President and the Manager. There is no provision for proceeding against the Registrar on the application of a rival Union before the Labour Court. On the other hand the aggrieved Labour Union can appeal against the cancellation.
3. The stay granted by the Labour Court for cancellation of the Registration being in contravention of section 10 of the I.R.O. is accordingly set aside. It is for the aggrieved Union to first approach the Registrar for cancellation and under section 10 the Registrar may file a complaint in writing before the Labour Court pointing out the contravention of the I. R. O.
4. For the above reasons the Revision Application against stay is allowed. H.B.T./217/Lb.S Revision allowed.