Find a Lawyer

Revision Petition No. LHR‑83 of 1984, decided on 24th April, 1984.

‑‑ Ss. 2 (xxviii) & 3 and West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. 2 (i) Trade union‑Joining of‑Right‑Does not depend upon definition of workman in West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employ ment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968‑Definition of "Work man" under Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 only relevant Gunman and Chowkidar‑Neither employer nor manager nor supervisor‑Not ousted from definition of "Workman" under S. 2 (xxviii) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969‑Have a right to become members and office bearers of trade union.

Ch. Ghulam Qadir Cheema for Petitioner.

Syed Niaz Ali Shah for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 18th April, 1984.

The revisions captioned above arises from the order, dated 14th March, 1984 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, whereby the petition for ad interim injunction was dis missed.

2. The respondents have directed the petitioner union to delete the names of Gunman/Chowkidars from the membership and office‑holders of the union as they were not workmen. The petitioner union has challenged the order before the learned lower Court in a grievance petition.

3. Needless to say that three conditions should be present for issu ing an injunction. One is that the party seeking injunction should have at least an arguable case. Second is that balance of convenience should be in its favour and the third is that by the refusal of the stay order, it is likely to incur irreparable loss. In my view all the three ingredients are present. The rights of joining a union, to be its member and office holder are guaranteed by the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 has no relevancy, so the definition of workman given in section 2 (xxviii) only is to be looked into. Gunmen and Chowkidars are neither employers nor Managers nor Supervisors. Exceptions (a) and (b) of the said section, therefore, are not applicable to them. They, therefore, are prima facie workmen. This being so, they have a right to become member, and office‑holders of a union.

4. The balance of convenience goes in favour of the petitioner. In the absence of the stay order prayed for the office‑holders, who are Gunmen and Chowkidars, would not be able to negotiate with the res pondents for the welfare and benefits of the workers, whereas to the contrary no inconvenience can be caused to the Management if till the final decision of the grievance petition the Gunmen and Chowkidars remain the members and office‑holders. It has been argued on behalf of the respondents that if Gunmen/ Chowkidars go on strike, the establish ment would remain in-secured. This argument is not tenable. When law allows legal strike, it cannot be prevented by deleting some workers from the list of members and office‑holders of the union. If any strike notice at all comes, some alternative temporary arrangement can be made t9 protect the premises during a legal strike.

5. The loss that the Gunmen/Chowkidars may incur will be irrepar able as it cannot be calculated in terms of money. By the refusal of the stay order the said employees will be prevented from exercising their rights to act for the welfare of the workers at large. If ultimately the grievance petition is accepted, the loss incurred by them will not be com pensated. So, this is a fit case for interference.

6. As a result, the revision is accepted and setting aside the im pugned order of the learned lower Court, the stay order prayed for is granted. The Gunmen/Chowkidars would continue to remain the members and office‑holders of the petitioner union till the decision of the main grievance petition by the learned lower Court.

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.