Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. Khanpur 39 of 1974/Pb., decided on 7th February 1975.

‑‑ Ss. 10 & 11 read with S. 8(7)‑Appeal against order of cancellation of Union's registration‑Question before Tribunal as to whether appellant, General Secretary of Trade Union competent to present appeal‑Appeal relating to dispute about office‑bearers of Trade Union under S. 8(7) already pending decision before Labour Court Decision of Labour Court in matter to be awaited in interest of justice‑Appeal accordingly adjourned sine die.

Nazir Ahmad Naz for Appellant.

Nemo for Respondent No. 1

Moinuddin Chaudhry for Respondent No. 2.

Date of hearing: 6th February 1975.

This is an appeal against the order of Punjab Labour Court No. 4 dated 6‑12‑1974 directing the respondent, Registrar, Trade Unions, Multan Region, Multan to cancel the registration of the appellant‑Union for not submitting the returns for the year 1972 in accordance with law. While this appeal was pending, one Rizwan Hussain filed an application for being joined as a party in the appeal. TIA appeal came up for hearing on 24‑1‑1975 when neither Rizwan Hussain nor any body else on his behalf appeared. His application was accordingly dismissed in default vide order dated 24‑1‑1975. The respondent also failed to appear on that day and ex parte proceedings were ordered against him. On 3‑2‑1975 an application under Order 1X, Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code was presented for the restoration of the application filed by Rizwan Hussain. That application was restored and Rizwan Hussain was impleaded as respondent vide my order dated 6‑2‑1975.

2. The first point for consideration is as to whether this appeal is competent.

3. From the record I find that on 14‑3‑1974 election of the office bearers of the appellant‑Union was held in which besides others Rizwan Hussain and Sardar Ahmad were elected as General Secretary and the President of the Union, respectively. That was approved by the respondent vide his order dated 20‑4‑1974. The Labour Court, therefore, gave a finding that Haji Nasir‑ud‑Din, who is representing the appellant‑Union was no longer the General Secretary. The learned representative of the appellant, however, contended that the election of the office‑bearers of the Union held on 14‑3‑1974 was bogus and that instead election of the office‑bearers of the Union was held on 1‑5‑1974 when Haji Nasir‑ud‑Din who is repre senting the appellant‑Union and one Malik Aftab were elected as General Secretary and President of the Union respectively and, therefore, Haji Nasir‑ud‑Din was competent to file the appeal on behalf of the appellant Union. It was also submitted that an appeal under section 8(7) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, against the order of the Registrar, Trade Unions, Multan Region, Multan, dated 20‑4‑1974 was pending before the Labour Court.

4. The question before me is as to whether Haji Nasir‑ud‑Din is competent to file the present appeal. Since an appeal against the order dated 20‑4‑1974 of the Registrar is pending before the Labour Court, I, in the interest of justice, would like to await the decision of the A Labour Court before finally disposing of this appeal. The appeal is: accordingly, adjourned sine die. The Labour Court is directed to apprise this Tribunal of the result of the appeal pending before it, so that this appeal be disposed of.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.