Find a Lawyer

‑‑S. 10 (1) (i) & (ii)‑Cancellation of registration‑Proceedings for‑Proper parties‑ Registrar seeking permission to cancel registration of trade union on grounds of failure to maintain forms meant for entering subscriptions paid by members‑Rival union applying for being impleaded as party‑Labour Court dismissing petition of rival union‑Held : Matter being between Registrar and respondent trade union, rival union having no say therein was not even a proper party‑Order of Labour Court, in circumstances, held, did not suffer from any legal infirmity hence upheld by Appellate Tribunal in revision‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 38 (3‑a).

H. R. Haider for Petitioner.

Malik Muhammad Asghar for Respondent No. 2.

Date of hearing : 13th February, 1984.

The revision titled above gives an information that the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore has wrongly dismissed the petition of the petitioner for being impleaded as party to the petition brought by respondent No. 1 for permission to cancel the registration of respondent No. 2 union.

2. The facts as given in the petition of the Registrar made to the learned lower Court under section 10, (i) (ii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 are that the Registrar sought permission to cancel the registration certificate of respondent No. 2 union on the ground that the said union had not maintained forms D and F meant for entering the subscriptions paid by the members of the union. But the learned counsel for the petitioner has in his arguments given different facts. He has argued that a complaint was made by the petitioner union to the Registrar that respondent No. 2 union got itself registered giving the names of such persons as its members who actually were the members of the petitioner union. This argument is not borne out from the complaint lodged by respondent No. 1 to the learned lower Court but displays that move for permission to cancel the registration of the union was made only on the ground that forms D and F had not been main tained by respondent No. 2 union. The matter was between respondent No. 2 union and the Registrar and the petitioner had no say in the matter and thus was not even a proper party. Its application for being impleaded as party was rightly dismissed.

3. So far as the dismissal of the main complaint of respondent No. 1 is concerned, since forms D and F had been submitted though at a late stage, there remained no ground for cancellation of the registration of the union. The Registrar who could have grievance, if any, has not come up before this Court.

4. The impugned order of the learned lower Court does no appear to be suffering from any legal infirmity. The revision is dismissed.

A. E. Revision 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.