Find a Lawyer

Petition No. LHR‑67 of 1984, decided on 12th July, 1984.

‑‑‑S.8‑‑Registration of Trade Union‑‑Number of workers as members of applicant union disputed‑‑Enquiry by Registrar to ascertain number of members made on back of applicant union and without any notice to it‑‑Applicant union, in circumstances, held, prejudiced for not being given opportunity to prove number of its members‑‑Order of Registrar dismissing application for registration and order of Labour Court dis missing appeal against order of Registrar, in circumstances, set aside in revision by Appellate Tribunal and Registrar directed to re‑decide matter after enquiry in presence of all rival unions‑‑Revision‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S.38(3‑a).

Asmat Kamal for Petitioner.

Ch. Ghulam Qadir Cheema for Respondent No. 2.

Date of hearing: 9th July, 1984.

The order, dated 25‑2‑1984 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala is informed to be void and wrong.

2. The petitioner union applied for its registration to the Registrar on 17‑8‑1983. On 27‑8‑1983 the Registrar raised certain objections which were replied. The Registrar delayed the decision, so the petitioner appealed to the learned lower Court.. During the pendency of the appeal the Registrar dismissed the petition for registration on 5‑10‑1983. The objection was that the persons mentioned as the members of the petitioner union were the members for respondent No.2 union.

3. The Registrar held enquiry on the back of the petitioner, inasmuch as no notice of enquiry was issued. It has been argued by the learned Registrar and the learned counsel for respondent No.2 union that the enquiry to be held by the Registrar is not a regular domestic enquiry held by the employers for awarding punishments to the employees, so the enquiry held without the notice to the petitioner was quite in order. I cannot agree to it. The petitioner union was to be given notice and enquiry could be held in its presence if the order was to go against it. The petitioner union has been prejudiced for not being given opportunity to prove in the enquiry that its members were not less than 80. The learned lower Court fell in error by not noticing that the enquiry was held on the back of the petitioner.

4. As a result the revision is accepted and setting aside the impugned order of the learned lower Court and of the Registrar, the latter is directed to re-decided the matter after making enquiry in the presence of all the three unions.

A. E.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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