Find a Lawyer

Petition No. MN-167/82, decided on 14th June, 1982.

---S.11--Appeal against order of Registrar Trade Union cancelling registration of Union--Establishment filed application to be impleaded as party to appeal--Held: Establishment has nothing to do with dispute of cancellation of Union as it was not called while considering question of cancellation and cannot be interested in result of appeal.

Syed Iqbal Ahmad Gilani for Petitioner. Date of hearing: 12th June, 1982.

This revision arises from the order dated 9-6-1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.8, Bahawalpur, whereby the application of the petitioner for being impleaded as party to the appeal brought by respondent No.1 against the order of respondent No.2 was dismissed.

2. One year back the industrial dispute was raised by respondent No.1. Two petitions under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 were lodged. The petitioner brought an application under Standing Order 11-A of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 for permission to close down some part of the factory. The permission was accorded vide order Annexure 'A' and according to the petitioner, the workers were paid off in the presence and with the signatures of the Law Officer. The Registrar of Trade Union, respondent No.3, there after, cancelled the registration of respondent No.1 Union, whereupon the said respondent filed an application under section 11 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The petitioner made an application to the learned lower court for being impleaded as a party to the said appeal, but it was rejected.

3. The matter is between respondent No.1 and respondent NO.% and the petitioner has nothing to do with it. The petitioner may be feeling interested in this that there should be no union in its establish ment, but presumption is that he is aloof from it and has nothing, to do with the dispute of the cancellation of the Union. The petitioner was not called by the respondent, neither could be called by the A Registrar when he was considering the question of the cancellation of the registration of respondent No.1 Union. This being so, how the petitioner now can be interested in the result of the appeal brought by respondent No.1 to the Labour Court against the order of the Registrar. If the order of cancellation of the registration of the union is set aside by the learned trial Judge and the registration of the union is restored, the union will discharge its functions and the employer can be in the last affected by it. The impugned order does not appear to be suffering from any legal infirmity. The revision is dismissed in limine.

M. I.

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.