Case Details

Citation(s)
1976 SLG 878 1976 SLD 878 1976 PLC 652
5th Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
Application No. 62 of 1972, decided on 31st March 19.73.
ABDUL HAMID BALOCH, PRESIDING OFFICER

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS

VS

PAK CIVIL AVIATION EMPLOYEES UNION

Law:

Section:

1976 P L C 652 [5th Labour Court Sind) Present: Abdul Hamid Baloch, Presiding Officer REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS Versus PAK CIVIL AVIATION EMPLOYEES' UNION Application No. 62 of 1972, decided on 31st March 19.73. Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII 1969)- -- S. I(3)-Applicability of Ordinance-Question decided previously by Court amongst same parties--Ground taken previously being "members of Union were employed in the administration of State "­Ground taken in subsequent proceedings" "services incidential to Armed Forces of Pakistan" (Employees of Pakistan Civil Aviation)­Previous decision, in circumstances, held, would operate as res judicata----­Provision of S. 1(3), held, not applicable to Employees of Pakistan Civil Aviation Department and mere employment therein would not debar them from forming Trade Union-Res judicata-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 11. 1972 P L C 296 rel. A. R. Qazl for Applicant. Z. H. Chishti for Respondent. ORDER Registrar of Trade Unions, Karachi has instituted an application under section 10 of I. R. O. seeking cancellation of registration certificate of respondent-Union. In nutshell the facts as disclosed in the application are that the respon­dent-Union was registered under the West Pakistan Trade Unions Ordinance, 1968 on the 16th October 1969. The membership of the respondent ­Union consists of the employees of the Civil Aviation Department, Government of Pakistan. Application at paras. 3 and 4 says: "it has been reported by the Department of Civil Aviation that it performs duties which are incidental to the Defence. The persons employed in that Department are, therefore, not covered under the 1. R. O. as required under subsection (3) of section 1 of that Ordinance and hence cannot form any Trade Union." Following point is taken up as preliminary: Whether the application is hit by provisions of section 1 (3) of I. R. O. and incompetent? My finding is in the negative for the following reasons: It is admitted position that there was a previous application between the same parties under section 10 of 1. R. O. before II Labour Court, Karachi, for cancellation of the registration of the respondent-Trade Union and that…
🔒
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