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.
Petition No.RI‑93 of 1986, decided on 22nd January, 1986.
‑‑‑S. 8 (7)‑‑Disputed change of office‑ bearers of trade union‑‑Registrar nut approving change‑‑Order of Labour Court directing Registrar to hold election of office‑bearers, in circumstance, held, legal.
‑‑‑S. 8 (7)‑‑Change of office‑bearers disputed‑‑Appeal before Labour Court against order of Registrar rejecting change‑‑Necessary party was only Registrar‑‑Parties to dispute, were only proper parties‑ ‑Non -impleading of proper parties was not objectionable.
Ch. Sadiq Muhammad Warraich for Petitioners.
Date of hearing: 21st January, 1986.
The order dated 13‑1‑1986 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.6, Rawalpindi is reported to be wrong and of no legal effect.
2. Vote of no confidence was passed against respondents Nos. 2 and 3. They in return got passed vote of no confidence against all the office holders of the Refinery Employees Union. The matter was sent to the Registrar for the approval of the changes in the office‑bearers. He disapproved both of the moves, Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 challenged the disapproval in appeal before the learned lower Court. The petitioners, except petitioner No. 1, were not impleaded as party to the appeal.
The learned lower Court after recording compromise statements of the parties to the appeal directed the Registrar to hold election of the office bearers and dismissed the appeal as not pressed.
3. It has been argued that either the appeal could be rejected or the Registrar directed to register change. The argument is not tenable. It is clear from section 8 (7) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 that the Labour Court can direct the: Registrar to hold election under his supervision. So, the impugned order is covered by section 8(7) and thus is legal.
4. The other argument is that the learned lower Court has allowed the preparation" of fresh lists of members, with the result that respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are increasing the membership and are putting their own persons in the union of the petitioners. The impugned order has directed the filing of list of membership and this direction is necessary and legal. Without list of members the Registrar cannot scrutinize the lists and hold election. If respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are trying to increase the membership of their union, the petitioners too can do so. But if the petitioner union is not popular enough to increase the membership they cannot blame the other union, nor can challenge the order of the court, which is quite legal. If the petitioners fear that respondents Nos. 2 and 3 will put their own favourites in their union, they can refuse to make such persons as members. The arguments therefore, carry no force. So far as this objection is concerned that the petitioners Nos.2 to 17 were not impleaded 'as party, suffice it to say that necessary party is the Registrar. The petitioners Nos.1 to 17 were only proper parties. This objection too is not tenable. If the petitioners were not heard by the learned lower Court, they have been heard in the revision, but no sufficient ground has been made out to interfere with the impugned order.
5. As a result, the revision 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