PLC 1977

1977 PLC 113 (PLP)

G. T. S. LABOUR UNION (C. B. A.) GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, LYALLPUR Versus REGISTRAR. TRADE UNIONS, SARGODHA REGION, LYALLPUR AND ANOTHER

Jurisdiction / Court
IIIrd Labour Court Punjab
Decided Date
Petition No. 12 of 1975, decided on 31st January 1975.
Honorable Judges
Saeed Ahmad, Presiding Officer
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1977 PLC 113 (PLP)
Forum / Court IIIrd Labour Court Punjab
Bench Members Saeed Ahmad, Presiding Officer
Parties G. T. S. LABOUR UNION (C. B. A.) GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, LYALLPUR Versus REGISTRAR. TRADE UNIONS, SARGODHA REGION, LYALLPUR AND ANOTHER
Primary Law (a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), (c) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969}
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1977 PLC 113 (PLP)?

This judgment primarily cites: (a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), (c) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969} as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1977 PLC 113 (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the IIIrd Labour Court Punjab bench comprising: Saeed Ahmad, Presiding Officer.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1977 PLC 113 (PLP) (G. T. S. LABOUR UNION (C. B. A.) GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, LYALLPUR Versus REGISTRAR. TRADE UNIONS, SARGODHA REGION, LYALLPUR AND ANOTHER). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) (c) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969}

Representation

  • Mirza Nazir Ahmed Naz for Petitioner.
  • General-Secretary for Respondent No. 2.

Headnotes / Summary

S. 34-Industrial dispute-Point that Elections of Mazdoor Union a were not properly held and change of officers should not have been approved by Registrar-Held, could be raised by any member or of Mazdoor Union and not by other Union, namely, Labour Union. - S. 34-Industrial dispute-Workers not named in list attached with application filed in Labour Court and their services also less than three months old-Point that such workers being members of Union entitled to vote in referendum conceded by President and General Secretary of Mazdoor Union the other Union-Workers, in circum stances, allowed to vote. S. 34--Election--Vote, casting of-Both parties representing that drivers and conductors not mentioned in list but declared by Court as eligible to vote would be sent to routes which would not disable them to cast their votes-Direction issued to Management to arrange duties of such workers in such manner as to enable them to cast their votes at the place of polling. Malik Wazir Ahmed for the Registrar.

Judgment & Decree

(c) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)- S. 34--Election--Vote, casting of-Both parties representing that drivers and conductors not mentioned in list but declared by Court as eligible to vote would be sent to routes which would not disable them to cast their votes-Direction issued to Management to arrange duties of such workers in such manner as to enable them to cast their votes at the place of polling. Mirza Nazir Ahmed Naz for Petitioner. Malik Wazir Ahmed for the Registrar. General-Secretary for Respondent No.

2. There are two Unions in Government Transport Service, Lyallpur. One is known as Labour Union and the other i9 known as Mazdoor Union. The former is C. B. A. The latter Union applied to the Registrar of Trade Unions, Sargodha Region, Lyallpur, to hold a referendum. On this application the Registrar fixed the date, 4-2-1975, for holding referendum. Aggrieved by this order the Labour Union filed this application under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for declaration that no referendum should be held on that date. Both the respondents were duly served. The parties were heard at length. During the course of hearing all the points in dispute were settled by the parties themselves. The first point in dispute was that the elections of Mazdoor Union were not properly held and that the change of officers should not have been) approved by the Registrar. This point can be raised by any member or officer of the Mazdoor Union. The other union namely; Labour Union cannot raise any objection either on the election or on the change of officers. The representatives of the Labour Union agreed that they were not competent to raise this objection. The next question was that 25 workers, whose names have been given in a list attached to this application, were not declared as voters. It was admitted by both the parties that their services were less than three months. On behalf of the petitioner it was stated that they were members of their Union and by virtue of their membership they were entitled to cast vote in the referendum. The point was conceded by the President and the General Secretary of the Mazdoor Union, I, therefore, hold that these 25 workers shall be allowed to cast their votes in the referendum. A list shall be sent to the Registrar of Trade Union, to register the names of these persons as voters. The next point raised before me was that certain drivers and conductors have to ply their buses on the routes to Rawalpindi and Haroonabad, and that they would not be in a position to avail the right of casting vote. On behalf of Mazdoor Union it was' stated that the Management had agreed not to send the voters on these routes on the day of referendum. It wax agreed by both the Union that on the date of referendum those drivers and conductors would be sent on these routes, who are not entitled to cast vote. A direction is issued to the Management to arrange the duties of the workers in such a manner that voters should not be posted to ply buses for the routes of Rawalpindi and Haroonabad to enable them to cast their votes on the date of referendum. A copy of this order shall be sent to the Management. There is no other dispute between the parties. Consequently, the application is dismissed.