Pakistan Case LawAGRICULTURE WORKERS UNION BALOCHISTAN through President_SecretaryGenerals Versus REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS, QUETTA and another
The petitioner, Agriculture Workers Union Balochistan, sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Balochistan dated 31-8-1994, which set aside the order of the 1st Labour Court, Quetta, and restored the Registrar of Trade Unions' refusal to register the petitioner union under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (IRO). The High Court had relied on an earlier unreported Supreme Court decision holding that certain staff of the Livestock and Agriculture Departments were not engaged in the running of an industry. The petitioner's counsel contended that a subsequent larger Bench ruling of the Supreme Court held that certain PWD employees were not engaged in state administration and qualified as workmen entitled to form a trade union under the IRO. The petitioner further argued that the earlier decision failed to consider the statutory definition of 'workman'. Finding that these contentions required further examination in light of the conflicting pronouncements, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal.
- Whether employees of government departments are entitled to register as a trade union under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 where their functions do not pertain to the administration of the State?
- Whether the failure to consider the statutory definition of 'workman' in prior precedent warrants reconsideration of the eligibility of departmental workers to form a trade union under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Whether leave to appeal should be granted to resolve apparent conflict in Supreme Court precedents regarding the trade union registration rights of non-administrative departmental employees under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
ORDER
SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---The petitioner union is seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of High Court of Baluchistan dated 31-8-1994, whereby the learned Judges of a Division Bench of that Court set aside the order dated 24-5-1994 passed by the Presiding Officer of 1st labor Court, Quetta and upheld the order of Registrar of Trade Unions, Quetta, dated 21-7-1993 refusing to register the petitioners as a Trade Union under Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (I.R.0.). .The learned Judges of Division Bench while allowing the writ petition filed by respondent No,1 relied on an unreported decision of this Court passed in Civil Petitions Nos.66-Q of 1992 and others, wherein it was held that the Vet nary Assistants, Stock Assistants and Technical Staff of Livestock Department could not be said to be persons engaged in the running of an industry and as such they were not entitled to get themselves registered as a Trade Union of Workers. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on a subsequent decision of this Court by a larger Bench dated 29-6-1994 C.As.48-Q to 67-Q/93, wherein after taking into consideration the definition of 'workman' given in the I.R.O., it was held that the persons connected with the construction or maintenance work of building, employed in P.W.D., cannot be treated as persons employed in the administration of the State, and therefore, such persons are entitled to form a Trade Union under I.R.O. The learned counsel, accordingly, contended that although in the judgment delivered in C.P. No,66-Q of 1992 and others, this Court held that the employees of the Department of Apiculture do not fall within the definition of employees of an industry but the definition of 'workman' as given in the I.R.O. Which has an important bearing on the matter was not considered. It is also contended by the learned counsel that in view of the subsequent decision of this Court in the case of Executive Engineer, PWD v. Abdul Aziz and others (C.A. 48-Q and others of 1993) decided by a larger Bench of this Court the petitioners were entitled to get themselves registered as a Trade Union under I.R.O. The contentions of the learned counsel need further examination and we, accordingly, grant leave to appeal in the above case. .
Judges on this bench
- Saiduzzaman Siddiqui789 judgments
- Mukhtar Ahmed Junejo485 judgments