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.
Applications Nos. MN‑286 to 289 of 1984, decided on 27th March, 1985.
‑‑‑Ss. 13 & 56‑‑False statement‑‑Complaint‑‑Complaint for prosecution before Labour Court‑‑Allegation that list submitted to Registrar included non‑members of Union‑‑Complaint without permission of Registrar, held, not maintainable.
1985 P L C 182; 1970 P L C 719 and 1982 P L C 973 rel. P L D 1977 Kar. 183 distinguished.
Date of hearing: 20th March, 1985.
The facts are that four complaints were brought by the respondents against the petitioners under section 56 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 on the ground that in the list submitted to the Registrar, the names of such persons were included, who were no: the members of the petitioner union. The learned lower Court, vide impugned order summoned the petitioner to stand trial. As common question of law in these revision petitions are involved, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment
2. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that complaint brought by the respondent was incompetent inasmuch as no permission from the Registrar was obtained under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Reliance in this behalf was placed upon the decision of this Tribunal reported in 1985 P L C 182, 1970 P L C 719 and 1982 P L C 973. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon P L D, 1977 Kar183, in which it has been observed that a complaint can be filed by a workman under sections 54, 55 and 56 without obtaining permission from the Registrar. The true legal position is that the criminal offences alleged to have been committed in cases where the Registrar has some concern, can be brought only either by the Registrar or by a person authorised by him. In other cases where the Registrar has no concern any aggrieved person may bring a complaint without getting permission under section 13. In the present case since the Registrar was concerned with the matter, taking permission from him was necessary. The allegation is that the list of persons submitted to the Registrar included such persons who were not the members of the petitioner union. It is obvious that if the allegation is correct the Registrar was attempted to be deceived. If permission had been sought from the Registrar, he would have first of all considered the matter to see if there was a prima facie case and the petitioner be prosecuted or not. The Registrar, therefore, was deprived of looking into the matter and deciding whether the petitioner should be prosecuted or not. The authority cited upon by the respondent is distinguishable inasmuch as the Registrar in that case was not in any manner concerned with the case.
3. As a result of the observations made above, I accept the revision petitions, and set aside the impugned order of the Labour Court. Complaints are filed.
A. E.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer