Find a Lawyer

Constitution Petition No. 66 of 1982, decided on 6th October, 1982.

(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑-

‑‑ S. 35 (1)‑Territorial jurisdiction of Labour Court‑Office of registered trade union situated at place different from place of establishment (Mill)‑Court having jurisdiction in area where Mill situated, held, has jurisdiction to matters relating to Trade Union.

(b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑--

---S. 8 (7)‑Orders of Labour Court directing Registrar to hold fresh election of office‑bearers of trade ‑ union‑Challenged before High Court in constitution petition on grounds that no reasons given therefore‑Record indicating reasons recorded by Labour Court‑Scrutiny of reasons recorded by Labour Court and to hold whether same were adequate, held, not proper for High Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction ‑Interference refused by High Court‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199.

Pakistan Warehouse Carriers Workers Union and another v. Presiding Officer, Sind Labour Court No. V, Karachi and 2 others 1982 PLC 528 distinguished.

M. L. Shahani for Petitioners.

Muhammad Shafiq Qureshi for Respondents Nos. 3 and 4,

Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2‑

Date of hearing : 6th October, 1982.

The petitioners have filed this Constitution Petition to challenge the order of Labour Court No. 3 ‑dated 6th March, 1982. By this order the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court had set aside the order of Respondent No. 1 namely. Registrar of Trade Unions and directed that fresh elections should be held under the supervision of the union in question after observing all the legal formalities within one month.

2. The facts of the case are that respondent Muhammad Nazir and Abdul Jabbar claimed to be office‑bearers of Mazdoor Itehad Union of the Star Textile Mills Limited situated at SITE, Karachi. Formerly one Adil Khan was President of this Union who, according to Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 had resigned. Whereafter fresh elections were held in which, according to these respodents, they were elected as office‑bearers. Respon dent Muhammad Nazir, therefore, made an application to the Registrar of Trade Unions (Respondent No. 2) for change of the names of the office bearers. The Registrar by his order dated 19th December; 1981 rejected the application of Muhammad Nazir on the ground that no documentary evidence was produced before him to prove that the notice of requisition of the meeting was served upon the General Secretary of the Union namely, Muhammad Mushtaq. Against this order both Muhammad Nazir and Abdul Jabbar filed appeal before IIIrd Labour Court under section 8 (7) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The learned Presiding Officer upheld the order of the Registrar but further directed that fresh elections should be held under the supervision of the Union.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the order of the Labour Court on three grounds namely : (1) that Labour Court No: 3 had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the appeal because the Office of the Union is situated in Khamosh Colony, Karachi which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of Labour Court No. 1 ; (2) that the order of the Labour Court is bad in so far as the Presiding Officer had not given reasons for holding fresh elections, as required by section 8 (7) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 ; and (3) that the , respondents Nos. 3 and 4 had no locus standi either to move the Registrar for recording change of office‑bearers or to file an appeal before the Labour Court: because they were neither office‑bearers nor they were members of the Union.

4. So far as the first contention is concerned, it would suffice to state that the office of the Mazdoor Itehad Union of the Star Textile Mills Limited is situated in SITE, Karachi, therefore, the Labour Court within whose jurisdiction the Mill ‑ is situated shall have jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The Gazette Notification showing the territorial jurisdiction of the' various Labour Courts at Karachi 'has been filed by the Petitioners As Annexure 'B', according to which, the area of SITE falls wit4in the juris diction of a Labour Court No. 3. The plea of the learned counsel, therefore.,2 regarding lack of territorial jurisdiction in Labour Court No. 3, Karachi is misconceived and should be rejected as such.

5. So far as the second ground is concerned, a perusal of the order of the learned Labour Court would disclose that reasons have actually been recorded by him for holding fresh elections. It would be advantageous to, reproduce the relevant portion of his judgment which relates to the reasons. It runs as under :

"it is an admitted position that the changes of the office‑bearers notified by both the rival groups were rejected by the respondent No. 1 on the ground of flagrant violation of the union's constitution. The record shows that both the groups have violated the union's constitution and the so‑called election held by them were unfair and farce in nature. Therefore no exception can be taken to the orders passed by the respondent No. 1. The appellants have claimed that, except 2 or 3 office‑bearers, the remaining have left their job from the mill and thus have ceased to be office‑bearers and members of the union. This assertion of the appellants was not seriously challenged U, the respon dents Nos. 2 and 3.

In view of the above discussion, I come to the conclusion that it would be in the interest of the justice to pass an order for fresh election. Accordingly, I direct the respondent No. 1 to hold fresh election under his supervision of the union in question, after observing all the legal formalities, within one month from now.",

From the above quotation it would appear that the learned Labour Court did record his reasons for directing fresh elections to held. It is not for exercise of constitutional jurisdiction to scrutinise the reasons this Court, given by the Labour Court a d to hold that the reasons are or are not 6 adequate. From a bare perusal of the Order of the Labour Court it would appear that there is no illegally or irregularity in the order or that it is in vi6lation of any provision of section 8 (7) of the Industrial Relations Ordi nance, 1969 so as to 1arran' interference by this Court. This objection is also repelled as unsustainable.

6. The last contention of the learned counsel is that respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were .neither members nor office‑bearers of the Union and as such they had no locus standi either to move the Registrar of Trade Unions or the Labour Court. Record of the Lower Court was summoned to find out whether these persons were or were not members of the trade union. In the record of the Labour ‑Court I find a list of members of this Union. At Serial No. 300 of this list there appears the name of Abdul Jabbar son of Abdul Razzaq. This list has not‑been challenged by the other side nor there is anything on the record to show that in the lower Court this list was challenged as being unauthentic or incorrect. Hence so far as Abdul Jabbar is concerned, it cannot be said that he has no locus standi to file appeal before the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court. It is immaterial that the other respondent i.e. Mohammad Nazir has not been proved to be a member or office‑bearer of the Union. He did claim to be an office‑bearer before the Registrar. The Registrar had refused to accept him as an office‑bearer. Muhammad Nazir was, therefore, aggrieved against this order and had right to challenge it before the learned Labour ,Court.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied on a decision of this Court in the case of Pakistan Warehouse Carriers Workers Union and another v. Presiding Officer, And Labour Court No. Y, Karachi and 2 others (1982 P L C 528). The facts in the above case were quite distinguishable from the facts involved

in the present matter. In the above case the Labour Court who had enter tained the appeal under section 8 (7) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 had no territorial jurisdiction and had given no reasons for holding fresh elections as required by section 8 (7). In the present case these facts do not exist and as such the case is distinguishable and is not attracted to the present case.

For the above reasons I hold that this constitution petition is not main tainable. It is, therefore, dismissed but there hall be no order as to costs

Petition 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.