| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1972 SLD 3055 = 1972 PLC 91 |
Sindh High Court
Constitutional Petition No. 370 of 1970, decided on 6th November 1970.
Presented By: Abdul Kadir Shaikh and Muhammad Ali Sayeed, JJ
Gurmukh Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax A I R 1944 Lah. 353 and Ishwini Kumar v. Arbinda Bose A I R 1952 S C 369 rel. Ghulam Hussain for Appellants. S. S. Pirzada for
Respondent No. 3. Tahir Husain for
Respondent No. 5.
Constitutional Petition No. 370 of 1970, decided on 6th November 1970.
Presented By: Abdul Kadir Shaikh and Muhammad Ali Sayeed, JJ
Gurmukh Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax A I R 1944 Lah. 353 and Ishwini Kumar v. Arbinda Bose A I R 1952 S C 369 rel. Ghulam Hussain for Appellants. S. S. Pirzada for
Respondent No. 3. Tahir Husain for
Respondent No. 5.
TANZEEM-E-MULAZAMIN BALDIYA AND 2 OTHERS---Petitioners
VERSUS
GOVERNMENT OF WEST PAKISTAN AND 4 OTHERS---Respondents
Law: Industrial Relations Ordinance, (XXIII of 1969)
Section: 22(2), (7), (8)
(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 22(2), (7) & (8) - Application under subsection (2) by Trade Union to hold ballot for being declared as bargaining agent--- Questions: (i) whether provisions of subsections (7) & (8) regarding "details" to be set out in lists of workmen mandatory or of directory character and (ii) whether failure to set out in lists particulars regarding "age" and "date of Trade Union membership" of workmen operates to vitiate poll. On an application made under section 22(2) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, a poll was held by the Registrar of Trade Unions to determine the collective bargaining agent of workers of a Municipal Corporation. Consequently one of the Trade Unions was declared to be the "collective bargaining agent" of the workers of the Corporation. The defeated Trade Unions filed a writ petition in the High Court and chal lenged the poll on the ground that the lists of workers furnished to the petitioners was not in conformity with the provisions of subsections (7) and (8) of section 22 of the Ordinance, in that they were lacking in the particulars prescribed by section 22(7). The contention precisely was that subsection (8)(a) of section 22, required that details regarding parentage, age, date of Trade Union membership etc. should be mentioned in the lists whereas the lists furnished to them did not mention two such details viz. "age" and "date of Trade Union membership" The poll, it was urged, thus suffered from serious irregularity and the result of the referendum was therefore vitiated. The petitioners contended 'tat the use of the word "shall" both in subsection (7) and again in subsection (8)(a) of section 22 indicated that the procedure and particulars prescribed therein were of an imperative and mandatory character. On the question, therefore, whether the provisions of subsections (7) and (8) of section 22, which required the details to be set out in the lists are of a mandatory or of a directory character and whether the failure to setout in the lists the two aforementioned particulars vitiated the poll. Held:…