Case Details

Citation(s)
2014 SLG 2666 2014 SLD 2666 2014 PLC 382
Sindh High Court
Constitutional Petition No.S-33 of 2011, decided on 2nd May,2014.
HASSAN FEROZE, J
S.S. Jehangir Khan for Petitioner. Syed Sardar Hussain Shah for
Respondent No.3. Abdul Ghani Khan for
Respondent No.4. Mukhtiar Ahmed Khanzada State Counsel.

Messrs TNB LIBERTY POWER LTD. through Authorized Manager and Security

VS

DIRECTOR OF LABOUR, GOVERNMENT OF SINDH and 3 others

Law:

Section:

Industrial Relations Act (X of 2012)--- ----Ss. 3 & 9(1)(2)---Industrial Relation Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss.3 & 50---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XIX R.1---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.199 & 17---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Alternate Remedy---Locus standi---Freedom of association---Trade union and freedom of association---Registration of trade union---Petitioner had assailed the order of authorities regarding unilateral issuance of certificate of registration of trade union---Contention of the petitioner was that authorities had registered the trade union of strangers/workers of other establishments, who had no concern with the petitioner's establishment without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner---Plea of the authorities was that the petitioner had no locus standi to file the constitutional petition, as under S.50 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 the petitioner had alternate remedy of appeal before Labour Court and that the Constitutional petition had been filed incompetently in violation of O.XIX, R.1, C.P.C.---Validity---Authorities were not required under the law to hear the petitioner before registration of the trade union---Neither the employer nor trade union already existing in the same establishment could claim locus standi to challenge the decision of the Registrar, merely on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was provided to it or an objection raised by it before the Registrar was not considered before such decision---Constitutional petition had been filed without proper authorization to the person, as for such an authorization a resolution of the petitioner (employer) company was necessary to authorize such person to file the petition and in absence of such Resolution of Board of Directors, the petition was filed incompetently in violation of O.XIX, R.1, C.P.C.---Section 50 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, had provided that any Collective Bargaining Agent or any employer may apply to the Labour Court for the enforcement of any right guaranteed or secured to him by or under any law or any award or settlement---Petitioner in case of any dispute or enforcement of…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492