JAFFAR HUSSAIN And Other vs PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal, which affirmed a Labour Court order declaring the petitioners ineligible to be elected as representatives of the 'Employees' Union Milk Pak Ltd.' The core legal questions are whether the petitioners, classified as supervisors by the employer, fall within the definition of 'worker' or 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and whether an application filed by the employer under Section 34 of the same Ordinance challenging the status of these employees was maintainable in law. The petitioners contend that the lower courts failed to properly consider evidence regarding their status as workmen and erred in their interpretation of the relevant statutory definitions. The Supreme Court, finding that the contentions raised by the petitioners regarding the interpretation of 'workman' and the maintainability of the application under Section 34 require detailed examination, granted leave to appeal. The decision highlights the necessity of correctly applying statutory definitions of 'workman' and determining the scope of remedies available to employers under industrial relations legislation.
- Does the definition of 'workman' under Section 2(28) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 include employees designated as supervisors?
- Is an application filed by an employer under Section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 maintainable to challenge the status of elected union representatives?
- Section 34, Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969
- Section 2(28), Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969
ORDER
ABDUL HAFEEZ MEMON, J.---The petitioners' employees of respondent No. 5, Milk Pak Limited, were elected as representatives of workers of "Employees' Union Milk Pak Ltd." approved by respondent No.3, Registrar of Trade Unions, Lahore.
2. Respondent No. 5, the employer, filed any application under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, before the Labour Court for declaring the approval by respondent No. 3 as invalid, on the ground that the petitioners were not workmen but were supervisors and, as such, could not be elected as representatives of the workmen of the said . Union.
3. The learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court granted the application by his order dated 14- 2-1995, which was maintained by the Labour Appellate Tribunal, and the writ petition filed by the petitioners against the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal was also dismissed in limine.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in view of the definition of the worker and workman under section 2(28) of I.R.O., 1969, the learned Courts below were in error in holding that the petitioners were not workman, and that the evidence brought on record in this connection showing the petitioners to be workman, was not duly considered by the p Courts below. Learned counsel further contended that the said application filed by respondent No. 5 before the Labour Court, under section 34 of LR.O., 1969, was not maintainable in law and the Courts below erred in holding that the same was maintainable in the said circumstances, which were contrary to the record.
5. The contentions raised by the learned counsel require consideration. Accordingly, we grant leave to consider the above contentions.