Find a Lawyer

Civil Appeal. No. 45 of 1979, decided on 13th November, 1985.

(Against the Judgment and order, dated 27‑1‑1979 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in W.P. No. 2191 of 1976).

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance (X of 1965), S. 34‑‑Leave to appeal granted to examine whether Social Security Institution established by West Pakistan Ordinance X of 1965 was an "industry" as defined in S. 2(14) of industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969); and whether application under S. 34 of Ordinance was competent before Labour Court.

‑‑‑S. 34‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑Trade Union seeking enforcement of settlement‑‑Labour Court accepted petition but Appellate Tribunal set aside order‑‑During pendency of writ petition filed by Trade Union, its registration cancelled‑‑High Court which restoring order of Labour Court failed to take note of this material fact rendering petition infructuous and incompetent‑‑Order of High Court set aside and writ recalled.

Mian Saeedur Rahman, Advocate Supreme Court for Ch. Altaf Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court, Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant.

Ex‑parte for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 13th November, 1985.

‑Leave to appeal was granted to examine) whether the Social Security Institution established by West Pakistan Ordinance X of 1965 was an "industry" as defined in section 2(14) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) and whether application under section 34 of the Ordinance was competent before the Labour Court.

2. Social Security Institution has been established under the West Pakistan Ordinance X of 1965. This Ordinance introduces a scheme of social security for providing benefits to the certain employees or their dependents in the event of sickness, maternity, employment, injury or death or for matters ancillary thereto. The respondent Punjab Employees Social Security (Non‑gazetted) Staff Union was, at the relevant time, a registered Union and functioning as a Collective Bargaining Agent under section 22 of the Ordinance. The General Secretary of the respondent Union moved an application under section 34 of the Ordinance on 17‑1‑1976 seeking enforcement of a settlement arrived at between the parties on 14‑6‑1975 in respect of corporation allowance and conveyance allowance and the total amount claimed was Rs.1,10,257. The competency of this application under section 34 of the Ordinance was contested by the appellant on numerous grounds including that Social Institution was engaged in the administration of the state concerning the affairs of the Province and that it was exempt under section (3) of the Ordinance from its purview and the respondent could not make or enforce any such demand. It was denied that the appellant was an "industry" and the respondents "workmen" under the Ordinance. Or 12‑4‑1976 the Labour Court accepted the respondents' application under section 34 and granted them the relief sought for. On appeal the Labour Appellate Tribunal on 26‑8‑1976 held that the appellant institution was not an "industry" and that the proceedings under the Ordinance were not competent and it dismissed the application of the respondent Union.

3. The respondent Union thereafter invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court and succeeded. By the impugned judgment the learned Judge in the High Court held that the Social Security Institution was an industry as defined in section 2(14) of the Ordinance that the application under section 34 was competent and that determination of the Labour Appellate Tribunal to the controversy was without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

4. The respondents were served in the appeal but have not responded to the notices and have been proceeded ex parte.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant brought to our notice the fact that the Labour Court has by a decision given on 2‑9‑1976 cancelled the registration of the respondents and this order has become final as no relief against it was claimed or obtained by the respondents with regard to the cancellation of its registration and there being no registered Union, the application under section 34 itself became incompetent and infructuous.

6. Section 34 of the Ordinance, permits a Collective Bargaining Agent or an employer to apply to the Labour Court for the enforcement of any right guranteed or secured to it by or under any law or any award or settlement. A "Collective Bargaining Agent" as defined in section 2(v) has to be a Trade Union of "workmen" which under section 22 is the agent of the Workmen. Section 22 of the Ordinance makes registration of the Union a necessary element, among others, for claiming the status and character of Collective Bargaining Agent. Having lost that status before the impugned judgment of the High Court was delivered, their claim under section 34 otherwise rejected by the Labour Appellant Tribunal had become infructuous and incompetent.

7. The record shows that the respondent had in fact applied at one stage in the High Court for staying the proceedings with regard to cancellation of their registration and a relief was in fact granted as a temporary measure but that was after their registration had been cancelled on 2‑9‑1976. No further modification of the interim order of the High Court was at any stage obtained. In the circumstances, the interim order does not interfere with the operation of the cancellation of registration ordered by the Labour Court on 2‑9‑1976 and the impugned judgment delivered on 27‑1‑1979 has nothing to do with the registration or cancellation of registration of the respondent.

8. In the circumstances and for the reasons given without discussing the merits of the claim, the appeal is liable to succeed on this preliminary ground that the respondent Union's registration having been cancelled, it could not seek under the Ordinance the relief which it was seeking from the High Court nor could, it be granted. This fact itself was not taken note of by the High Court though it appears that the order of cancellation of the registration of the Union was placed on record and it had material bearing on the competency and continuance of the constitutional petition.

9. We accept the appeal ex parte against the respondents, se aside the judgment of the High Court and recall the writ which issued leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

M. I. Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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