Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Revision No. LHR‑285 of 1985, decided on 12th October, 1985.
‑‑‑Ss. 8(7) a 38(3‑a)‑‑Election held correctly‑‑Labour Court passing order that till fresh annual elections are held elected body will continue to hold office‑‑Order of Labour Court challenged in revision on plea that Labour Court said wrongly that election would be held before expiry of term of existing elected body‑‑Revision dismissed‑‑Held: Order of Labour Court had no legal Mistake as elections are to bead before expiry of term of existing elected body but newly elected body resumes office after expiry of term of previous office‑holders.
S. M. Kaleem for Petitioner.
Date of hearing: 6th October, 1985.
The order, dated 1‑8‑1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore is reported to be without jurisdiction and of no legal effect.
2. The election of the office‑bearers of Mazdoor Union was held on 8‑10‑1983 in which 25 office‑bearers were elected. The election was duly approved by the respondent. Thereafter, the respondent vide his order, dated 16‑2‑1985 asked the union to reduce the number of office bearers as in view of the total membership of the union the number of office‑bearers could not be 25. The union, accordingly, reduced the number of office‑bearers to 20. The proceedings were sent to the Registrar for approval but he refused. The petitioner who was Senior Vice‑President tried to get election held a new but having failed, he himself convened the meeting and held election and sent the proceedings to the Registrar for approval. The respondent refused to approve the said election. Both the groups went to the learned lower Court under section 8(7) and the learned lower Court has passed the impugned order. It has been held that 25 office‑bearers were correctly elected and thus all other subsequent proceedings were illegal and that till fresh annual election is held, the elected body would continue to hold office. The learned representative has not been able to point out any legal mistake that may have been committed by the learned lower Court. It has, however, been argued that the learned lower Court has wrongly said that new annual elections will be held in September, 1985 but on some later date the annual elections are to be held. I do not find much force in this argument. If the term of the present union has expired in October, 1985, it does not mean that the election should be held after that. Rather elections are held before the term expires but the newly elected office‑holders resume duty on the expiry of the term of the previous office‑holders.
3. As a result, the revision has no force and thus is dismissed in limine.
A.E. Revision dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer