Find a Lawyer

Petition No. LHR-146 of 1982, decided on 9th July, 1983.

-- Ss. 8 (7) & 22 (1), (2)-C. B. A. certificate, issuance of Rival union existing-Labour Court on application of one Union under S. 8 (7) without notice to other Union directing Registrar to issue C.B.A. certificate-Section 8 (7) deals only with change of office bearers and case, held, governed by S. 22 (2) which required holding of referendum-Order of Labour Court, in circumstances. set aside by Appellate Tribunal under suo motu revision jurisdiction -Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 38 (3-a).

H. R. Haider for Petitioner.

Muhammad Shafi for Respondent No. 1.

Khurshid Alam for Respondent No. 2.

Date of hearing : 4th July, 1983.

This revision is directed against the order, dated 13th April, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No 3, Lahore at Ferozewala, whereby direction was given to the Registrar to issue C. B. A. Certificate to respondent No. 1 union on its application made under section 8 (7) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The petitioner union which claims to be C. B. A. was not impleaded as a party.

2. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no direction to-issue C. B. A. Certificate can be issued to the Registrar under section 8 (7) that respondent No. 1 union not being the only union as the petitioner union existed, so without referendum no C. B. A. Certi ficate could be issued ; that the petitioner union being C. B. A. no question of declaring any other union as C. B. A. could arise and that Labour Court, Ferozewala had no jurisdiction.

3. In reply filed by the Registrar, it is clearly mentioned that respon dent No. 1 union was not the only registered union, but another registered union namely, the petitioner union, also existed and thus without referen dum under section 22 (2) respondent No. 1 union could not be declared as C. B. A. After getting this information it was necessary for the learned lower Court to direct respondent No. 1 to implead the petitioner as party and decide if only one or more unions existed and after that he could have issued direction to the Registrar. Section 8 (7) deals with the change of office-bearers of a union. Respondent No. 1 union did not ask for the registration of any change in office-bearers. There is no provision in section 8 (7) to issue any certificate of C. B. A. Section 22 (1) applies where/, there is only one union having its members not less than one-third of th [[e total members. Where there are more than one union, section 22 (2)I applies which says that referendum shall be held.

4. As a result of what has been said above, I accept the revisions and setting aside the impugned order of the learned lower Court, remand the case with the direction that impleading the petitioner as party to the petition made by respondent No. 1 and after giving opportunity of evidence, if any, the petition be redecided.

A. E. Case remanded.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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