| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1975 SLG 3280 = 1975 SLD 3280 = 1975 PLD 885 |
Court of Special Judge, Karachi
Constitutional Petition No. 342 of 1975, decided on 10th June 1975.
Presented By: Zakaullah Lodhi, J
Bindra's Interpretation of Statutes, Chap. VIII, p. 234 ref. Shahanshah Hussain for Petitioner. Obaidur Rehman for
Respondents.
Constitutional Petition No. 342 of 1975, decided on 10th June 1975.
Presented By: Zakaullah Lodhi, J
Bindra's Interpretation of Statutes, Chap. VIII, p. 234 ref. Shahanshah Hussain for Petitioner. Obaidur Rehman for
Respondents.
NATIONAL CEMENT INDUSTRIES MAZDOOR UNION -Petitioner
VERSUS
REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS. KARACHI AND 2 OTHERS Respondents
Law: Industrial Relations Ordinance, (XXIII of 1969)
Section: 22(5), (6)
(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XIII of 1969) S. 22(5) & (6)-Collective Bargaining Agent, voting for-Interpreta tion of statutes-Maxim: Expressio unius est exclusio alterius (mention of one is exclusion of another)-Language of section unambiguous -Legislator's intent to be gathered from literal construction of words Language of section 5 manifestly imposes two conditions regarding preparation of list of voters for election of Collective Bargaining Agent : (i) worker to complete 3 months' service ; (ii) to be member of :any one of contesting Trade Unions-All other categories of workers stand excluded. The language of subsection (5) does not admit of any ambiguity and is quite plain. It clearly points out as to which of the workers working in an establishment would be entitled to participate in the referendum. It manifestly imposes two conditions on the Registrar, Trade Union in respect of preparing the list of voters, i.e. he would include in the list the names of only those workers who have completed 3 months' service in the establishment and who are members of any one of the contesting Trade Unions. Section 2 of the (Interpretation of Statutes by Maxwell states : "when the language is not only plain but admits of but one meaning, the task of interpretation can hardly be said to arise." Reliance was placed upon the rule Expressio unius est exclusio ,alterius and argued that the definite category of the workers who are eligible to vote in the referendum has been mentioned in subsections (5) and (6) by which fact all other categories of workers who work in the same estab lishment and who could be eligible to vote if they had fulfilled the conditions laid down in these provisions of law stand excluded, hence by no stretch of imagination any other category of workers can be regarded eligible to participate in the referendum. Held: No other meaning can also be assigned to these provisions of law than those which have been given that is only those workers are eligible to participate in the referendum who have completed three- months' services in the establishment and who belong to the contesting Trade Unions. Maxwell on…