Find a Lawyer

Revision Petition No. LHR‑393 of 1983, decided on 13th March, 1984.

‑‑ Ss. 8 & 38 (3‑a)‑ Registration of Trade Union‑ Registrar rejecting application for registration of trade union due to failure of union to remove objections that more than 25% members of Executive Committee were outsiders and memberships were incom plete‑Labour Court rejecting appeal against order of Registrar Order of Labour Court, in circumstances, held, not suffering from any legal infirmity warranting exercise of suo motu revision powers.

Asmat Kamal for Petitioner.

Date of hearing: 6th March, 1984.

The order date'. 31st October, 1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 3. Lahore at Ferozewala has been challenged in this revision, whereby the appeal of the petitioner challenging the order of the Registrar, dated 10th September, 1983 was dismissed.

2. The petitioner had applied for its registration. The Registrar informed the Union that 278 members were such that they were members of the other Union. The petitioner union was asked t0 remove the objections within 15 days. 1n reply the petitioner sent letter, dated 19th April, 1983 that was received by the Registrar on 21st April, 1983. The Registrar after considering the said letter rejected the application for registration holding that the membership forms sent with letter, dated 19th April, 1983 were incomplete and that more than 25% members of Executive Committee were outsiders. On appeal the learned lower appellate Court vide its order, dated 17th July, 1983 remanded the case to the Registrar for re‑decision after allowing opportunity to the petitioner to explain the position with regard to the objection raised by the Registrar. The case was remanded because the Registrar had dismissed the petition on different grounds that were not taken up earlier. Thereafter, the petitioner Union instead of removing the objections asked the Registrar vide letter, dated 21st July, 1983 Exh. to register the Union within 20 days. The Registrar again dismissed the petition as previous as well as subsequent objections were not removed. The learned lower appellate Court has rightly rejected the appeal inasmuch as the petitioner Union did not remove the objections. It appears that the defects pointed out by the Registrar were correct, therefore, they could not be removed. Since the membership forms were incomplete, it means that the persons mentioned therein as members were not members. The other objection that more than 25 per cent members of the Executive Committee were outsiders may also correct, therefore, could not be removed. The petitioner is purposelessly running to the Courts. The impugned order of the learned lower appellate Court does not suffer from any legal infirmity for which necessity. of exercising suo motu powers of revision may be felt.

3. As a result, the revision is rejected.

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.