Find a Lawyer

Application No. GA‑281 of 1983, decided on 23rd January, 1984.

-----Ss. 1(3), 3, 8, 11 & 38(3)‑Reg1stration of Trade Union‑Reg1strar rejecting application for reg1stration ‑ Labour Court accepting appeal and directing reg1stration‑Order of Labour Court challenged in revision before Appellate Tribunal ‑ Plea that members of respondent Union not covered by definition of "workman" and excluded under S. 1 (3)‑Reg1strar and Labour Court, in circum stances, held, should have decided whether S. 1 (3) was applicable to members of respondent union‑Order of Labour Court, in circum stances, set aside and Reg1strar directed to re‑decide application for reg1stration after inviting evidence on point involved.

Nazir Ahmad Naz for Petitioner.

Javed Iqbal for Respondent No. 1.

S. M. Ashraf for Respondent No. 2.

Date of hearing : 21st January, 1984.

The petitioner union is C. B. A. respondent No. 1 union applied to the Reg1strar for the reg1stration of the union but the Reg1strar refused. Appeal was lodged to the learned Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala which was accepted and the Reg1strar was directed to reg1ster respondent No. 1 union and it was done. Respondent No. 1 union applied for referen dum. The Reg1strar issued notice to the petitioner union. The petitioner union has challenged the order of the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala dated 2nd April, 1983, whereby the Reg1strar was directed to reg1ster respondent No. 1 union. The ground is that the members of respondent No. 1 union being the employees of Octroi Branch cannot take benefit of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 being employed in the admin1stration of State. Since the petitioner union was not party to the application made to the Reg1strar for the reg1stration of the union and to the appeal brought by respondent No. 1 in the Labour Court, it could not raise the objection now raised in the revision. Section 3 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 provides that the workers without d1stinction have a right to establish a union. The word workers' means employees who are covered by the definition of worker given in section 2 (xxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The employees to whom the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 is not applicable, cannot be said to be workers as defined by the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. In order to see if a particular employee is covered by the definition, his duties and wages are to be considered. Some members of respondent No. 1 union may be hit by section 1 (3) and some may not. So, the Reg1strar should have before rejecting they application for reg1stration invited evidence. It was the duty of they Labour Court also to see before deciding the appeal if the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was or was not applicable to the members of respondent No. 1 union but it was not done. The order of the learned Labour Court impugned in this revision, therefore, is not maintainable.

2. As a result, the revision is accepted and setting aside the order of the learned Labour Court, the Reg1strar is directed to redecide the applica tion for reg1stration of respondent No. 1 union after inviting evidence. The petitioner will be party to the application of respondent No. 1 union for reg1stration in the peculiar circumstances of the case and entitled to lead evidence on the relevant points. Till the petition is finally decided, the peti tioner union shall continue to be C. B. A.

A. E. Revision accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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