1976 PLP 322 (PLC)
WORKERS' UNION Versus REGISTRAR, TRADE UNION
| Citation | 1976 PLP 322 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Court Punjab |
| Bench Members | Abdul Razzaque Khan, Presiding Officer |
| Parties | WORKERS' UNION Versus REGISTRAR, TRADE UNION |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1976 PLP 322 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1976 PLP 322 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Court Punjab bench comprising: Abdul Razzaque Khan, Presiding Officer.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1976 PLP 322 (PLC) (WORKERS' UNION Versus REGISTRAR, TRADE UNION). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Judgment & Decree
Appeal No. 346 of 1974, decided 9th January 1975.
S. 9 read with S. 1(3)-Construction company doing construction work of Pakistan Navy-Employees of such company so far as working on such project, held, cannot be allowed facilities of Ordinance Refusal of Registrar to register their Union upheld. [p. 32 AA General Secretary for the Union. Muhammad Yaqoob for Registrar. Registrar vide his order dated 14-6-1.974 has refused to register the appellant-Union on the ground that the employees are in service an installa tion connected with or incidental to Naval Forces of Pakistan. Learned counsel for the appellant states that no doubt, now-a-days M. Mohammad Sharif and Company is doing construction work of residential complex of Pakistan Navy at Islamabad but it is private a firm doing its work on contract. So their Union should be ordered to be registered. 2. I am affraid, I cannot agree with learned counsel for the appellant for the reason that so far as these workers are working on a construction of Naval complex, they cannot be allowed the facilities of the Industrial Relations Ordinance and other labour laws, as is clear by subsection (3) of section I of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, Appeal is therefore rejected.