Act (XVI of 1926)
granted cannot be revoked unilaterally.
Trade Union Act XVI of 1926 if a recognition was granted to a labour union,
registrar: lion of the recognition by the Registrar was not essential to the
recognition, and such recognition could not be unilaterally withdrawn.
League Vs. Chairman, East Pakistan. Rly. Board (1968)20 DLR 140.
Appeal—Limitation—Appeal under sub-section (3) of s. 11—To be treated as suit—
Word but deemed to be or treated as suits—Appeal under s. ii, Trade Unions Act,
1926—Covered by s. 14(1), Limitation Act, 1908—Time spent before wrong Court excluded
in computing period of limitation.
General Secretary, P. W.
R. Union (Workshop), Lahore Vs. The Registrar, Trade Unions and Another,
(1969)21 PLD (Lahore) 1080.
dispute between the employers and the employees in the context of the Trade
Union Act must be one which is between the employers and the workmen under the
calling of the employees by itself without reference to the employers is not
sufficient for the purpose of the qualification of the officers under section
22(2) of the Trade Unions Act. The Industrial Disputes Ordinance and the Trade
Unions Act must be read together so as to determine as to whether a particular
Union represents workmen of a particular industry for the purpose of raising an
in. dustrial dispute.
Mercantile Employees’ Association Vs. Chairman, Industrial Court (1966) J8DLR
S. 28B [and
the facts of the present case with reference to the provisions of the 1965 Act
(i. e. East Pakistan Trade Union Act) even if the petitioner (i. e. EPRW
Employees League) was granted le. gal recognition by the 1960 Ordinance, that
recognition has ceased to exist with the enactment of the East Pakistan Trade
Union Act of 1965 and the repeal of the 1926 Act unless and until it is saved
by the provisions of section 49(2) of the 1965 Act.
League Vs. Chairman E Pak Rly. Board (1968)20 DLR 140.
S. 28D— Trade
Union ceased to be a recognized Union—Possesses no locus standi to raise an industrial dispute.
having ceased to occupy the character of a recognized Union, has no locus standi, either to raise an
industrial dispute, on behalf of the members, or to take it to the Industrial
instant case the position was that even if the amended provisions of the Trade
Unions Act contained in Chapter Ill-A could not be invoked by the employers
then also the duration of the agreement having expired, the appellant Union
lost its capacity to represent the workers for the purpose of raising an
industrial dispute. It’s only right conceivable could be, as a registered
Union, to represent a workman who may be a party to an industrial dispute, by
virtue of section 34 of the Industrial Dispute Ordinance, 1959. But to attract
that provision, a “dispute” requires to have been raised by a workman himself
and not by the Union on his behalf.
Mercantile Employees’ Association Vs. Chairman, Industrial Court (1967)19 DLR