1989 PLP 1490 (SCMR)
ESTABLISHMENT Petitioner Versus NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION and 4 others Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1490 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Javid Iqbal and Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | ESTABLISHMENT Petitioner Versus NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION and 4 others Respondents |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1490 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1490 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Javid Iqbal and Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1490 (SCMR) (ESTABLISHMENT Petitioner Versus NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION and 4 others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abid Hassan Minto, Advocate, instructed by Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Irshad Ahmad Oureshi, Advocate, instructed by Ch. Oamar‑ud‑Din Meo, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.4.
- Date of hearing: 22nd February, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 10th January. 1984 of Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No.2438 of 1982) ‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Constitution, of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Referendum‑‑Petition disposed of by making certain clarifications essential for the future guidance in respect of the holding of the referendum and the results thereof.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought, against the dismissal by the High Court, of a Constitutional petition. It had arisen out of a referendum result which amongst others was to determine the Collective Bargaining Agent (C.BA.), in Pakistan Railways' Open Line Establishment (O.L.E.). The dispute has long history. The petitioner had lost in the final referendum on account of a fairly wide margin of votes. Their complaint, amongst others, was that legitimate voters were not included in the final list of voters. The High Court in a very elaborate judgment after conceding some of the points raised from the petitioner's side had amongst others come to the conclusion that the difference of votes was such that the writ in the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, would not issue in favour of the petitioner. We have heard the learned counsel from both sides. To be fair to the learned counsel for the petitioner he stated that although a long period has elapsed between the last referendum and the next referendum, which is yet to take place, and the administration concerned being cognizant of this aspect of the matter, is already exmaining various features thereof for holding the referendum. He also very frankly stated that there are some practical difficulties in arranging a referendum in the Open Line Establishment. He has also taken the position that the defacto C.BA. having been a party to various agreements, the petitioner would not at this stage disturb the status quo as the next referendum is now in A sight. He, however, contended that certain clarifications are essential for the future guidance in respect of the holding of the referendum and the results thereof. After hearing both the learned counsel and noticing that they do not materially disagree in this behalf, we make the following observations with their consent:‑ (a) That the list of voters for the referendum must be brought up‑to‑date before the referendum in such a manner that it should include all fresh entries up to a few months before the referendum. The period can be about 3 to 6 months keeping m view the fact that the referendum is for Open Line Establishment which extends to far off .places involving difficulties of communications. (b) That the question whether a certain defect affects the referendum or not with a view to set it aside in its entirety, will depend upon the circumstances of each case and situation; and it is not a universal rule that whenever there is wide margin of votes between the winning and the losing party the referendum shall not be set aside for this reason alone. With the foregoing observations this petition stands disposed of. M.A.K/R‑90/S Order accordingly.