Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: JAFFAR HUSSAIN and others 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 others vs PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE
and others Case No.: Civil Petition No,1177/L of 1996 Writ Petition No,2148 of 1996 Date of Judgment:1996-06-16 Reported As: 1998 SCMR 565 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 an application under section 34 of 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 a 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 is 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 no workmen, and that the evidence brought on record in this connection showing the petitioners to be workman, was not duly considered by the Court below. Learned counsel further contended that the said application file by respondent No,5 before the Labour Court, under section 34 of I.R.O 1969, was not maintainable in law and the Courts below erred is 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.