Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Appeal No. KAR: 67 of 1914, heard on 2nd May 1974.
----S. 22(1)‑Jurisdiction of Labour Court‑Determination of status of Union as collective bargaining agent‑‑Only one Union duly registered existing‑‑Question whether such Union had one‑third of its total members from workmen employed in concerned establish ment‑Union failing to prove one‑third members as employees of concerned establish tent‑Labour Court, in circumstance, held, had jurisdiction under S. 22(1) to determine locus standi of Union.
Messrs Farhat Industries, Karachi v. Workers' Union 1973 P L C: 136 distinguished.
Ch. M. Maarif for Appellant.
Sub‑Lt. A. A. Zafar for Respondent:
Date of hearing: 2nd May 1974.
Sub‑Lt. A. A. Zafar, on behalf of the respondent prayed for adjournment on the ground that they have applied to the Ministry of Defence for services of some Advocate. This is an old case. It was filed on the 12th of February 1974, and admitted on the 28th of February 1974. This is no ground for adjournment. Adjournment refused.
2. I have heard Ch. M. Maarif, for the appellant. He has placed reliance on my decision reported in Messrs Farhat Industries, Karachi v. Workers Union (1973 P L C 136), in support of his contention that it is the exclusive jurisdiction of the Registrar of Trade Unions to decide whether their Union is a Collective Bargaining Agent' or not. It is true that the position of law is so but in the present case the question is the interpretation of section 22(1) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance of 1969. The short question was as to whether the appellant, which claimed to be the only Registered Trade Union and, therefore, the Collective Bargaining Agent' had 1/3rd of the total number of workmen employed in the establishment or not. According to the learned Labour Court the appellant‑Union failed to prove that they had one‑third employees of the respondent as its Members. The General Secretary of the Union, in his cross‑examination was unable to say that if any of its office‑bearers was in the employment of Civil Service of Navy or not. He was unable to give the names of the employees of the respondent Branch of the Military who are members of the Union. He was not able to produce any list of its members to establish that it bad one‑third members of the respondent's workmen. The learned Court had jurisdiction to interpret section 22(1) of the Ordinance an rightly dismissed the case. The appeal is dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer