1974 PLP 273 (PLC)

S. 34 read with S. 22(1)-Application to Court-Locus stand Collective bargaining agent only can make application-Workers' Union not registered-Not a Collective bargaining agent hence incom petent to make application. Khalid Jamil for Appellant Wasi Ahmad for Respondent. Date of hearing: 18th August 1973. This is an appeal against an award of the learned Presiding Officer of Sind Labour Court No. V, Karachi, dated May 14, 1971, whereby the learned Labour Court came to the conclusion that 21 worker had been locked out and they were entitled to restoration in service with full back benefits. The appellant's case was that it had not locked out these workers, but bad terminated the services of some of them, who were in its employment en the ground that they had gone on illegal strike. The appellant from the very beginning contended that the application under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 hereinafter called the Ordnance), was not maintainable, inasmuch as the Sartaj Hotel Workers' Union (hereinafter called the respondent-Union), as not a registered Trade Union. The learned Labour Court did not apply its mind to this question and omitted to give any finding on this point. 2. This appeal can be disposed of on the short ground that the application under section 34 of the Ordinance was not maintainable, as the respondent-Union was not a registered Union on the 7th of February 1973, when the application was made. The application was filed by Mushtaq Ahmed Siddiqui, General Secretary of the Union In Paragraph 1 of the application, he stated that the applicant-Union was a registered Trade Union. In Paragraph 3, of the application, it was stated that the Union came into existence on 27th January 1973, and it applied for registration on 27th January 1973. On the face of it, the registrar could not have registered the Union in such a short time. Mr. Wasi Ahmed, the learned Representative for the respondent-Union, however, candidly showed me, during the course of the arguments, the Registration Certificate which is dated 8th February 1973. The question is as to whether the respondent Union was competent to make an application on behalf of 21 workers on 7th February 1973. 3. Under section 34 of the Ordinance, it is only the Collective Bargaining Agent, which can apply for the enforcement of any rig it guaranteed or secured to it by or under any law or any award or settlement. Collective Bargaining Agent is defined under section 2 of the Ordinance. It mans, "the Trade Union of workmen which, under section 22, is the agent of the workmen in the establishment or, as the case may be, industry, in the matter of collective bargaining." 4. Under section 22(1) of the Ordinance "where there is only one registered Trade Union in an establishment or a group of establishments, that Trade Union shall, if it has as its members not less than one-third of the total number of workmen employed in such establishment or group of establishments, be deemed to be collective bargaining agent for such establishment or group." What is important to note is that in order to be a Collective Bargaining Agent, the essential condition is that it must be a registered Trade Union. On the face of it, the respondent-Union was not a registered Trade Union on 7th February 1973. It was admittedly, registered on 5th February 1073. I would have treated the application on behalf of the workmen, had the workmen the right to file an application under section 34 of the Ordinance. The right of an individual worker to make an application under section 34 of the Ordinance was taken away by an amendment of the Ordinance dated 10th November 1972. In these circum stances, I am reluctant to take a technical view that the application under section 34 of the Ordinance was not maintainable. The appeal is allowed and the award of the learned Labour Court is set aside.