| Case ID |
2d39681e-b794-44f1-99b3-1eb80c0c27f1 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
High Court Appeal No. 116, Civil Miscellaneous App |
| Decision Date |
Oct 31, 1997 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Messrs HAKIM AND SONS CHEMICALS against the Registrar of Trade Marks. The court held that the appellants failed to demonstrate any illegality or wrongdoing in the Registrar's decision to register the Trade Union. The appellants did not exhaust the available remedies under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, which required them to file a complaint before the Labour Court for cancellation of the Trade Union's registration. The High Court concluded that the Registrar acted within his legal authority and that the Trade Union's registration did not violate any provisions of the law or the appellants' rights. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case of Sindh High Court Appeal No. 116, Civil Miscellaneous Application No.612 of 1997, adjudicated on October 31, 1997, the petitioner, Messrs HAKIM AND SONS CHEMICALS, challenged the Registrar of Trade Marks' decision to register a new Trade Union, M/s. Hakimsons Chemicals Industries (Pvt.) Limited Employees' Union. The appellants contended that the Registrar failed to conduct a proper inquiry into the employment status of the union's members, alleging that they were merely temporary, daily-paid workers who had been terminated on October 31, 1996, and thus should not qualify for Trade Union registration under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, XXIII of 1969, specifically Section 7.
The case hinged on several pivotal legal doctrines and statutory interpretations. Central to the appellants' argument was the assertion that the Registrar was obligated to involve the employer in the inquiry process, ensuring that the union members were bona fide employees at the time of registration. They referenced precedents such as CIBA Geigy (Pak) Ltd. v. Registrar, Trade Unions and others Civil Petition No. 55 of 1990, and M/s. Ghee Corporation of Pakistan v. Registrar, Trade Unions and others 1991 PLC 207, to support their claim that proper procedural protocols were not followed.
However, the court meticulously analyzed the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, highlighting that the employer's active participation in the Registrar's inquiry was not a mandatory requirement. The Ordinance empowers the Registrar to independently verify the facts pertinent to Trade Union registration without necessitating the employer's involvement. Furthermore, the appellants failed to provide concrete evidence to substantiate their claims that the union members were not valid employees, thereby weakening their position.
The court also delved into the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, specifically Article 199, which delineates the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction. The judiciary emphasized that for a constitutional petition to be entertained, the petitioner must exhaust all available remedies under existing laws. In this instance, the appellants did not approach the Labour Court for the cancellation of the Trade Union's registration as prescribed by Section 10 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, thus rendering their constitutional petition premature and untenable.
Additionally, the court examined the implications of Section 12(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, VI of 1968, which mandates employers to issue termination letters to employees. The absence of such termination documentation in this case meant that the appellants could not definitively prove the cessation of employment of the union members, thereby countering their argument.
The decision underscored the principle that the High Court does not serve as an appellate or revisional body in matters concerning Trade Union registrations unless there is a clear violation of jurisdictional limits or procedural irregularities that result in legal harm to the aggrieved party. Since the Registrar acted within the bounds of the law and the trade union's registration did not infringe upon the appellants' legal rights or interests, the court dismissed the appeal.
This case is a significant reference in labor law jurisprudence, particularly in understanding the procedural aspects of Trade Union registrations and the extent of the Registrar's authority under the Industrial Relations Ordinance. It reinforces the necessity for appellants to follow the statutory remedies before seeking constitutional redress and clarifies the High Court's role in overseeing trade union matters. Legal practitioners citing this case will find it invaluable in arguing the bounds of administrative discretion and the procedural prerequisites for challenging Trade Union registrations.
Key legal concepts highlighted in this case include Trade Union registration procedures, the role and authority of the Registrar under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199, and the imperative for appellants to exhaust statutory remedies before seeking judicial intervention. The decision also emphasizes the judiciary's stance on not overstepping into administrative functions unless clear legal breaches are evident.
For professionals in the field of labor law, this case serves as a critical benchmark for adjudicating disputes related to Trade Union formations and registrations. It underscores the importance of adhering to legislative frameworks and the judicious use of constitutional provisions, thereby fostering a balanced and lawful industrial relations environment. The ruling also offers clarity on the limitations of the High Court's intervention in administrative matters, ensuring that judicial resources are aptly utilized in cases with substantive legal grievances rather than procedural lapses.
In summary, the Sindh High Court's decision in this case reaffirms the procedural autonomy granted to administrative authorities in Trade Union registrations while delineating the scope of judicial intervention. It serves as a guiding precedent for future cases involving labor disputes, administrative law, and constitutional petitions, ensuring that the principles of legality, procedural fairness, and judicial prudence are upheld in the realm of industrial relations. |
| Court |
Sindh High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Registrar of Trade Marks,
Messrs HAKIM AND SONS CHEMICALS,
M/s. Hakimsons Chemicals Industries (Pvt.) Limited Employees' Union,
Respondent No. 2 Union
|
| Judges |
MRS. MAJIDA RAZVI,
SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD
|
| Lawyers |
S. Qamaruddin Hassan,
M.A. K. Azmati,
Mushtaq Ahmed
|
| Petitioners |
Messrs HAKIM AND SONS CHEMICALS
|
| Respondents |
REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS
|
| Citations |
1998 SLD 1235,
1998 PLC 122
|
| Other Citations |
CIBA Geigy (Pak) Ltd. v. Registrar, Trade Unions and others Civil Petition No. 55 of 1990,
M/s. Ghee Corporation of Pakistan v. Registrar, Trade Unions and others 1991 PLC 207,
Idara-e-Kissan v. Registrar, Trade Union and others 1995 PLC 134,
Muhammad Yaqoob v. The Punjab Labour Court No. 1 and others 1990 SCMR 1539,
Shaikh Gulzar Ali & Company v. Special Judge Banking Court and others 1991 SCMR 590,
Adamjee Insurance Company v. Pakistan 1993 SCMR 1798,
Abdur Rehman v. Haji Mir and others PLD 1983 SC 21,
Mumtaz Ahmed and others v. Assistant Commissioner and another PLD 1990 SC 1195,
Akhtar Ali v. Member, Board of Revenue, Consolidation, Punjab and others 1980 CLC 159,
Zulfikar Ali Bhutto v. The State PLD 1978 SC 40,
Chairman, Employees Old-Age Benefit Institution and others v. M. Ismail Munawwar 1984 SCMR 143,
Saleem Ahmed v. Central Board of Revenue and others 1990 CLC 812,
Yaqoob Ali v. Presiding Officer, Summary Military Court PLD 1985 Kar. 243,
Mst. Khurshid Bibi v. The Custodian Evacuee Property, Sindh and others 1985 CLC 395
|
| Laws Involved |
Industrial Relations Ordinance, XXIII of 1969,
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, VI of 1968,
Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
|
| Sections |
7,
25-A,
Os. 1,
2-A,
12(3),
Article 199
|