| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 3688 2025 SLD 3688 = 2025 PLC 42 |
Balochistan High Court
Constitution Petitions Nos.595 of 2020, 455 of 2022 and 430 of 2023, decided on 31st August, 2024.
Before Muhammad Ejaz Swati ACJ and Muhammad Aamir Nawaz Rana, J
Muhammad Ewaz Zehri and Mujahid Hussain Qaisarni for Petitioner (in Constitution Petition No.595 of 2020). Muhammad Ali Rakshani, Additional Advocate General for
Respondents Nos.1, 3, 5 and 6 (in Constitution Petition No.595 of 2020). Gulzar Ahmed Kanrani for
Respondent No.4 (in Constitution Petition No.595 of 2020). Mir Sahibdad Mirwani for Petitioner (in Constitution Petition No.455 of 2022). Muhammad Ali Rakhshani, Additional Advocate General for
Respondents Nos.1 and 4 (in Constitution Petition No.455 of 2022). Gulzar Ahmed Kanrani for
Respondent No.3 (in Constitution Petition No.455 of 2022). Muhammad Ali Rakhshani, Additional Advocate General for Petitioner (in Constitution Petition No.430 of 2023). Gulzar Ahmed Kanrani for
Respondent No.1 (in Constitution Petition No.430 of 2023). Muhammad Ewaz Zehri and Mujahid Hussain Qaisrani for
Respondent No.5 (in Constitution Petition No.430 of 2023).
Constitution Petitions Nos.595 of 2020, 455 of 2022 and 430 of 2023, decided on 31st August, 2024.
Before Muhammad Ejaz Swati ACJ and Muhammad Aamir Nawaz Rana, J
Muhammad Ewaz Zehri and Mujahid Hussain Qaisarni for Petitioner (in Constitution Petition No.595 of 2020). Muhammad Ali Rakshani, Additional Advocate General for
Respondents Nos.1, 3, 5 and 6 (in Constitution Petition No.595 of 2020). Gulzar Ahmed Kanrani for
Respondent No.4 (in Constitution Petition No.595 of 2020). Mir Sahibdad Mirwani for Petitioner (in Constitution Petition No.455 of 2022). Muhammad Ali Rakhshani, Additional Advocate General for
Respondents Nos.1 and 4 (in Constitution Petition No.455 of 2022). Gulzar Ahmed Kanrani for
Respondent No.3 (in Constitution Petition No.455 of 2022). Muhammad Ali Rakhshani, Additional Advocate General for Petitioner (in Constitution Petition No.430 of 2023). Gulzar Ahmed Kanrani for
Respondent No.1 (in Constitution Petition No.430 of 2023). Muhammad Ewaz Zehri and Mujahid Hussain Qaisrani for
Respondent No.5 (in Constitution Petition No.430 of 2023).
BALOCHISTAN IRRIGATION EMPLOYEES REGISTERED through Chairman CBA and others
VERSUS
GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN through Secretary Irrigation and Power Department and others
Law: Industrial Relations Act, 2012
Section: X,19(1)
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 199
Industrial Relations Act (X of 2012)-------S.19(1)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Trade Union of Employees of Irrigation Department---Registration---Collective Bargaining Agents relating to establishments located in Islamabad Capital Territory---Trans-provincial and industry-wise trade unions---Determination--Jurisdiction of NIRC to register trade union of workers of Provincial Department of Government of Balochistan (GoB)---Scope---Petitioner challenged the registration certificate and Collective Bargaining Agent (CBA) Certificate of the trade union of workers of Irrigation Department---Contention of the petitioner was that Government Departments of GoB were taking steps for cancellation of registration of trade unions existing in different Government Departments in compliance with a judgment of High Court, thus, Registrar, NIRC, had committed illegality not only by registering the said union, but also by issuing CBA Certificate to the said union--Validity---Previously existing Trade Unions in Irrigation Department, GoB were subsequently unregistered in compliance with a judgment of High Court--Preamble of Industrial Relations Act, 2012, (IRA, 2012) provided the scope of IRA, 2012, which was enacted to rationalize the law relating to formation of Trade Unions, federation of Trade Unions and determining the Collective Bargaining Agents relating to establishments located in Islamabad Capital Territory and in trans-provincial industry---Definition of "industry-wise trade union" means a Trade Union having its membership in more than one Province in a group of establishments owned by one employer, thus, considering the definition, the workers of Irrigation Departments, GoB, did not qualify the definition of either "trans-provincial establishment" or "industry-wise trade union"---Industrial Relations Act, 2012, mentions "trans provincial" as any establishment, group of establishments, industry having its branches in more than one Province, therefore, the employees of Irrigation Department, GoB, or its Canal Division could not be termed as "workers of trans-provincial establishment" or "industry-wise trade union"---Apart from this the…