1996 PLP 545 (PLC(CS))
Syed SARDAR HUSAIN SHAH Versus REGISTRAR, TRADE UNIONS, HYDERA$AD REGION, HYDERABAD and 7 others
| Citation | 1996 PLP 545 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | Syed SARDAR HUSAIN SHAH Versus REGISTRAR, TRADE UNIONS, HYDERA$AD REGION, HYDERABAD and 7 others |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 545 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996 PLP 545 (PLC(CS))?
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: 1996 PLP 545 (PLC(CS)) (Syed SARDAR HUSAIN SHAH Versus REGISTRAR, TRADE UNIONS, HYDERA$AD REGION, HYDERABAD and 7 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Munawar Ahmed for Respondent No.
- Date of hearing: 31st March, 1996.
Headnotes / Summary
S- 38(3-a)
Second revision application
Tribunal having already decided matter in revision upholding order of Labour Court, second revision application filed in respect of same matter was not maintainable Fasahat Hussain Rizvi for Applicant. Khadim Hussain for/Respondents Nos. 2 to 7
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S‑ 38(3‑a)‑‑‑Second revision application‑‑‑Maintainability‑‑‑Tribunal having already decided matter in revision upholding order of Labour Court, second revision application filed in respect of same matter was not maintainable Fasahat Hussain Rizvi for Applicant. Malik Munawar Ahmed for Respondent No. Khadim Hussain for/Respondents Nos. 2 to 7 Date of hearing: 31st March, 1996. This Revision Application pertains to the dispute amongst office‑bearers of Essa Cement Industries Workers' Union, Nooriabad, ‑District Dadu. The workers expressed No‑Confidence in the office‑bearers and held fresh elections The fresh 'names of the office‑bearers were forwarded to the Registrar who accepted them. The old office‑bearers filed an appeal against new office‑bearers of the Union before the Sindh Labour Court No.VI, Hyderabad on the grounds that the fresh election .was against the Constitution. The Labour Court directed holding of enquiry in respect of No‑Confidence Motion and fresh elections. The enquiry was held by the Registrar himself. The Labour Court accepted the report of the Registrar. The Enquiry Officer held that No‑Confidence Motion by the union in the office‑bearers was not valid and the old group of office‑bearers was retained. Thus, it was found that No‑Confidence Motion against the provisions of the old Constitution was moved and fresh elections could not be ordered 'Such an order was already passed by this Tribunal in Revision Application No.260 of 1995. This is another Revision Application filed by the other set, of office‑bearers.
2. The order of the Labour Court having‑been maintained in the first Revision Application, this Second Revision Application is dismissed in limine. H.B.T:/90/Lb.S Application dismissed.