Find a Lawyer

Application No. 71 of 1980, heard on 23rd January, 1980.

‑‑ S. 38 (3‑a)‑Revision‑Registration of change of office‑bearers of Trade Union challenged before Labour Court‑Prayer for operation of change rejected by taken place and balance of convenience also not in favour of applicant‑Application for review against decision of Labour Court, rejected, with observations that there was no sufficient reason for interference by way of suo motu revision.

Ch. M. Maarif for Applicant.

Date of hearing : 23rd January, 1980.

By this application, the appellant, who claims that he is the General Secretary of the Kohinoor Battery Mazdoor Union, has prayed that the Tribunal should exercise its suo motu revision powers under subsection (3‑a) of section 38 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, in respect of an order passed by the Second Labour Court on 17th January, 1980, rejecting the application filed by the applicant under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, C. P. C., for staying of the operation of a change in the office -bearers of the said Union registered by the Registrar, Trade Unions.

2. The circumstances in which this application has been filed are that at a meeting of Kohinoor Battery Mazdoor Union, held on 3rd July, 1979, which was attended by 2 representatives of the Registrar, Trade Unions, changes were affected in the office‑bearers of the Union, including in the office of the President. As these changes were accepted by the Registrar, Trade Unions, the 'former Union President, Jalil Ahmad, challenged the registration of the changes before the Labour Court by way of Appeal No. 2/79. He, however, withdrew the said appeal on 9th December, 1979. On the same date, the present applicant, in this capacity as General Secretary of the Union, preferred an identical appeal against the change in the office‑bearers of the Union affected in the meeting held on 3rd July, 1979, being Appeal No. 3/79. That appeal is still pending. It is in that appeal that the present applicant had filed the application for the grant of injunction which was rejected by the learned Labour Court. Mr. Ch. Maarif, the learned Representative for the applicant, submitted that on the day following the filing of Appeal No. 3/79 by the applicant, a further change was effected in the office‑bearers of the Union concerned, in that the applicant was removed from the post of the General Secretary and instead the former President, Jalil Ahmad, was elected as General Secretary. This change was also accepted by the Registrar, Trade Unions. Against .the said change the applicant has preferred another appeal, which is fixed for hearing on 24th January, 1980. Mr. Ch. M. Maarif contended that the above change is likely to render the applicant's Appeal No. 3/79 infructuous, and consequently, the learned Labour Court should have granted the injunction against the change of the office‑bearers, as prayed by the applicant. I am not impressed with this contention. The sub sequent change of office‑bearers is said to have been effected in a meeting of the Trade Union held on 10th December, 1979. The said change has been accepted and registered by the Registrar, Trade Unions: The legality of the said change has been questioned in an appeal preferred by the applicant and the matter is under consideration of the learned Labour Court. In view of these circumstances, the question of revising the order of the learned Labour Court, dated 17th January, 1980, does not arise as no injunction can now be granted since the change has already take place. Furthermore, as pointed out by the learned Labour Court, the balance of convenience is not in favour of the applicant nor he has made out a prima facie case.

3. I accordingly see no sufficient reason for interfering with the impugned order of the learned Labour Court, dated 17th January, 1980, by way of suo motu revision. The application is accordingly dismissed.

Application dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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