Find a Lawyer

Constitutional Petition No. S‑100, Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 1517 and 1621 of 1985, decided on 5th December, 1985.

‑‑‑S. 7(2)(b)‑‑Trade Union‑‑Registration declined for non‑fulfilment of statutory requirement .of one‑fifth membership‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction, invoking of‑‑Detailed arrangement having been made by Authority for holding referendum and petitioners being consenting parry to holding of such referendum, High Court allowed such referendum o be held on date fixed with direction not to announce result of such referendum till permission of Court.

Shamsuddin Khalid for Petitioner.

Ali Amjad for Respondent No.3.

These are two miscellaneous applications fixed for hearing and both of them are for stay. This petition came up for Katcha Peshi on 1‑10‑1986 when it was admitted to regular hearing and there was also Miscellaneous Application No.1517 of 1985 for stay on which notice was issued to the respondents as well as A.‑G. On the next date i.e. 15‑10‑1985 the learned A.‑G. also appeared and respondent No. 2 appeared in person and counsel for respondent No.3 requested for time to file counter‑affidavit and hearing of Miscellaneous Application No.1517 of 1985 for stay was adjourned. Petitioner in this Petition is National Bank of Pakistan Employees Front Sind and the main grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.3 namely National Bank of Pakistan Liberal Workers Front Sind (Applicant for registration as Trade Union) is not eligible for registration under the provisions of I.R.0. as collective bargaining unit. In this context steps were taken and an appeal was filed under section 8(3) of I.R.O., 1969 before the Sind Labour Court No. V at Karachi calling in question the order passed by Registrar of Trade Unions impleaded in this petition as respondent No.2 rejecting the application of respondent No.3 for registration on the ground that requirement of one‑fifth membership as contemplated under section 7(2)(b) of the I.R.O., 1969 is not fulfilled. Sind Labour Court after hearing the parties has allowed appeal in consequence whereof order of the Registrar has been set aside and he has been directed to register respondent No.3 within ten days from the date when the order was passed.

Aggrieved against that order, petitioner filed this Constitutional Petition, which came up before the Division Bench of this Court and was admitted for hearing as stated above and subsequently, it was found that this Petition could be heard by a Single Judge for the reason that impugned order was not passed by the Labour Appellate Tribunal. In the meantime stated above according to the learned counsel for the petitioner impugned order of the Sind Labour Court was acted upon because stay could not be obtained from the High Court even after the admission of the Petition, hence it became necessary to file second stay application. Second stay application is Miscellaneous Application No.1612 of 1985. It may be mentioned here that prayer in the first stay application is that operation of the impugned order passed by the Labour Court should be stayed and the prayer in the Second Stay Application is that respondent No.2 (Registrar of Trade Unions) be restrained from proceedings any further on. the basis of impugned certificate issued by him on 1‑10‑1985 to respondent No.3 till the final disposal of that application.

It is now submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.3 is proceeding with holding of referendum and in that connection preparations have been finalized. Mr. Ali Amjad, Advocate for the respondent No.3 states that result of the referendum would decide the fate of the grievance of the petitioner that respondent No. 3 is not eligible to apply for registration for the reason that it is unable to fulfil the requirement of one‑fifth membership of the total number of workers. It is further submitted by him that petitioner should not feel shy of participating in the referendum because the referendum will decide the whole point in issue. Mr. K. H. Bukhari, Deputy Director Labour is present in the Court on behalf of respondent No. 2 and has stated that the date of the referendum is fixed for 9‑12‑1985 and in this connection all the detailed arrangements have come to a final and this referendum is to be held throughout Sind and arrangements have been made to hold polls at 23 Polling Stations. Not 4 only this but this has been done with the consent of the parties including the petitioner. In these circumstances, the fairest proposition is that the referendum be allowed to be held on the date so fixed and respondent No.2 is directed not to announce the result unless permission is given by the Court. Order accordingly. By consent to come up again for hearing of these applications in the second week of January, 1986.

A. A. Order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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