ANJUMAN MINT MULAZMEEN PAKISTAN MINT Versus REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS

This is a revision reporting that the order dated 14‑2‑1987 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.1, Lahore is wrong and improper.

2. The petitioner Anjuman applied to the respondent for its registration but it was refused holding that the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was not applicable by virtue of its Section 1(3). The petitioner went in appeal before the learned lower Court which too, was dismissed.

3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that only those persons are not covered by the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 who are actually employed in the administration, of State and that since the members of the petitioner union have no concern with the work of minting, they are entitled to make a union. This is an admitted fact that all the members of the petitioner union are employed in the Pakistan Mint. The case of the petitioner is that its members are not actually employed in the preparation of coins but they prepare knives, badges etc. The difficulty is that no evidence was produced about the functions performed by the members of the petitioner union. The representatives of the union who appeared before the Inquiry Officer appointed by the Registrar made statement as is apparent from the file of the Registrar that they did not want to produce any other evidence except the documents which had already been placed on the record. There is, therefore, no evidence as to what actual duties the members of the petitioner union Perform and that the articles prepared by them are not used and have no connection with the preparation of coins. List of members is on the file of the Registrar in which the designations of the members are given but it is not mentioned as to in which department of the Mint they are employed. In the column of nature of employment the words written are 'Government servant'. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made reference to Annexure 'E' which is a statement of monthly production for the month of April, 1986. This document is mentioned in the memorandum of appeal but it was not brought in evidence either before the Registrar or as additional evidence before the learned lower appellate Court. This document shows that models, badges, tokens, broaches, title shoulder, cuff rings, key rings, emblem shields etc. are prepared in the Mint, but this document does not disclose if these articles are prepared by the members of the petitioner union. There is also no evidence that the articles mentioned in the document have no connection with the construction or maintenance of coins. In reply to the appeal this document is neither admitted, nor denied but appeal and its reply not being pleadings, it cannot be said that by not replying this document it has been admitted. Even if it be taken as admitted, since as mentioned above, there is no evidence as to who prepared the articles mentioned therein and whether they have any connection or not with the formation and maintenance of coins, the document is not helpful.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that revision by the petitioner does not lie. He relies upon P L D 1979 Karachi 225. But there is no ruling reported at page 225. He has argued that an aggrieved person cannot come in revision under section 38 (3‑a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. This Tribunal can get information about an order passed by the Courts working under it from some one. So, unless some person comes and makes report in writing that a particular order has been wrongly passed, this tribunal cannot have any occasion to act under this section. If the learned counsel means that any other person but not the aggrieved person can report the matter to this tribunal under section 38 (3‑a) of the Ordinance then it is obviously absurd that an unconcerned person may come but a person who feels aggrieved against a particular order cannot inform this Tribunal that the order is wrong. Learned counsel has also argued that the Karachi High Court in the ruling mentioned above followed P L D 1967 S C 221. I have perused the Supreme Court ruling but have not been able to find that any such point was involved about the entertaining of a revision. It has been held that the Settlement Commissioner has no power to fix the period of limitation for a revision petition, but it has been observed that the revision may be dismissed on the ground of laches.

5. As a result, the revision fails and is dismissed.

E. E. /408/Lb.P

Petition dismissed