Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: JAFFAR HUSSAIN And Other VS Respondent: PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE And Others
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Abdul Hafeez Memon, Muhammad Ilyas Title:JAFFAR HUSSAIN And Other vs PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE
And Others Case No.: Civil Petition No. 1177/L of 1996 Writ Petition No. 2148/96 Date of Judgment:1996-06-16 Reported As: 1997 PLC 204 Result: Leave granted Judgment ORDER ABDUL HAFEEZ MEMON, J.---The petitioners' employees of respondent No. 5, Milk Pak Limited, were elected as representatives of workers of "Employees' Union Milk Pak Ltd." approved by respondent No.3, Registrar of Trade Unions, Lahore. 2. Respondent No. 5, the employer, filed any application under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, before the Labour Court for declaring the approval by respondent No. 3 as invalid, on the ground that the petitioners were not workmen but were supervisors and, as such, could not be elected as representatives of the workmen of the said . Union. 3. The learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court granted the application by his order dated 14- 2-1995, which was maintained by the Labour Appellate Tribunal, and the writ petition filed by the petitioners against the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal was also dismissed in limine. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in view of the definition of the worker and workman under section 2(28) of I.R.O., 1969, the learned Courts below were in error in holding that the petitioners were not workman, and that the evidence brought on record in this connection showing the petitioners to be workman, was not duly considered by the p Courts below. Learned counsel further contended that the said application filed by respondent No. 5 before the Labour Court, under section 34 of LR.O., 1969, was not maintainable in law and the Courts below erred in holding that the same was maintainable in the said circumstances, which were contrary to the record. 5. The contentions raised by the learned counsel require consideration. Accordingly, we grant leave to consider the above contentions.