Find a Lawyer

Revision Petition No. FD‑124 of 1984, decided on 12^th July, 1984.

‑‑‑S.8‑‑Registration of trade union‑‑Registrar deputing Labour Officer to hold enquiry regarding membership and election of office‑bearers of applicant union who submitted report that 66 workers out of 153 said to have participated in meeting stated that they were not members of applicant union‑‑Affidavits of workers alleged' to have made statement before Labour Officer produced before Registrar stating that they were members of applicant union and they had not stated their non‑alliance with applicant union‑‑Registrar without recording statement of such workers rejecting application for registration‑‑Labour Court recording statement of some of workers whore affidavits were filed before Registrar and after ascertaining their affidavits accepting appeal against order of Registrar directing Registrar to register applicant union and to issue registration certificate-‑Order of Labour Court, in circumstances, held, suffered from no fault or irregularity warranting interference in suo motu powers of revision by Appellate Tribunal‑‑Revision‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S.38(3‑a).

Munawar Ahmad Javed for Petitioner.

Mahboob Alam for Respondent No.1.

Bashir Ahmad for Respondent No.2.

Date of hearing: 24th June, 1984.

The revision titled above gives information that the order, dated 16‑4‑1984 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.4, Faisalabad directing the Registrar of Trade Unions to register the respondent Union and to issue the registration certificate, is illegal.

2. Respondent No.1 union after holding election of the office‑bearers of the union made application to the Registrar, respondent No. 2 for the registration of the Union. The Registrar deputed its Labour Officer to hold an enquiry, who doing so submitted report that the membership and election held by respondent No.1 union were bogus, inasmuch as 66 workers out of 153 who participated in the meeting stated that they were not the members of the respondent No.1 union. Before the Registrar rejected the application of respondent No.1 union for registration, affidavits of 90 workers out of 93, who are alleged to have stated before the Labour Officer that they were not members of the petitioner union, were produced which are to the effect that they did not show their non‑alliance with respondent No.1 union. In spite of it the Registrar rejected the application. If he was not satisfied with the affidavits, he should have before deciding the application, recorded their statements. Ten persons out of the said 90 workers, whose affidavits had been filed before the Registrar, were examined by the learned lower Court and they said that they did not state before the Labour Officer that they had no connection with respondent No.1 union. Presumption of correctness is attached to the Court's proceedings. No evidence was produced by the petitioner that those ten persons were bogus. This proved that the Labour Officer's enquiry was improper and unreliable. Since the Registrar relied upon such an unreliable enquiry, his order was not sustainable and was rightly set aside by the learned lower) Court. In the referendum it will become clear if the formation of respondent No.1 union is bogus or genuine. I do not find any fault or illegality in the impugned order for which the exercise of suo motu powers of revision may be considered expedient:

3. As a result, the revision is rejected.

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.