Find a Lawyer

Case No. 4 (215) of 1983, heard on 27th December, 1983.

------‑Ss. 8‑A & 15 read with S. 53‑Termination of service of office bearer of trade union during pendency of registration application Remedy‑Choice‑Contention that complainant has right of choice to make complaint either under general provision of S. 15 read with S. 53 or under S. 8‑A read with S. 53‑Rejected‑Specific provision provided for special nature of case could only be invoked‑Complainant, in circumstances, held, could invoke provisions of S. 8‑Aread with S. 53 and complaint under S. 15 (d) (i) (ii) read with S. 53 dismissed by N. I. R. C.

Pervez Inayat Malik for the Complainant.

Riaz Anwar for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 24th December, 1983.

Complainant Muhammad Islam was employed as Cook with the Auto Machine Tools and Parts Industries Limited. A union was formed in the establishment, about which an intimation was conveyed to the Registrar of Trade Unions on 31st July, 1983 and to the Managing Director on the 7th of August, 1983. The union was registered on 25th August, 1983. While the registration proceedings were pending, the respondent decided to terminate the services of Muhammad Islam on 18th August, 1983. The complainant states that the matter was brought to the notice of Registrar of Trade Unions Lahore who wrote to the respondent on 25th August, 1983 to refrain from any unlawful action but invain. On this basis charge was framed against Syed Amar Ali accused that he terminated the service of Muhammad Islam during the pendency of Registration of the union even though the name of the said officer was notified to the employer in writing. Further that be terminated his services by reason that the complainant took part in trade union activites. The counsel for the accused states that even if charges were accepted to be true for the sake of arguments, the same would not be triable by this Commission. Mr. Pervez Inayat Malik states that the right to choose remedy vested to the complainant, he had choosen his remedy under section 15 of the I. R. O. 1969. He said that he can avail the remedy under section 25‑A of the I. R. O., under section 8‑A of the 1. R. O. or under section 53 of the I. R. O., 1969. I, however, do not agree with him that a specific provision has been provided under the law to deal with the case of special nature only that provision could be availed and the general provisions could not be invoked. In this view of the matter the complainant could invoke the provision of section 8‑A read with section 53 of the 1. R. O., 1969 if he feels so impelled. The general provision of section 15 read with section 53 could not be availed. The complaint is consequently dismissed. The accused is acquitted.

A. E. Complaint dismissed.