1988 PLP 300 (PLC)

‑‑‑Ss.22(1) & 22‑A(8)(d)(e)‑‑Collective bargaining agent‑‑Industry‑ wise trade union‑‑Application for grant of certificate of C.B.A under S . 22(1) refused by Commission for reason that another Union had been registered by Registrar, Trade Unions, in the same industry and as such application was not maintainable‑‑Commission, for purposes of granting a certificate of C.B.A. could be concerned only with unions registered with it as industry‑wise trade unions‑‑No material qn record to show that applicant union had its membership in all the branches of the industrial establishment to which it belonged‑ Application having been decided without giving opportunity to applicant to produce such material, impugned order was set aside and matter remanded to the Single Bench for fresh decision in the light of 1977 P L C 20. 1977 P L C 20 ref. Ch. Rashid Ahmad for Appellant. Mahmood Abdul Ghani, Representative for Respondent No.2. M.S.H. QURAISHI (CHAIRMAN).‑‑This appeal has been heard under subsection (4) of section 22‑B of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, in the absence of learned Member Mr. Ashraf Ali, Joint Secretary Labour, who is pre‑occupied.

2. None has appeared for Hyderabad Electronics Labour Union although as ordered by this Court, notices had been sent to them first on 8‑3‑1987 for hearing on 8‑4‑1987 and again on 21‑3‑1987 for hearing today.

3. The matter has been heard. The appellant union claiming to be the only industry‑wise trade union having been registered with this Commission, had applied under section 22 (1) of the IRO, 1969 for certificate of CBA. The application was, however, refused by the impugned order dated 18‑12‑1986 for the reason that another union, namely, Hyderabad Electronic Industries Labour Union registered with the RTU Sind exists and as such application under section 22 (1) was not maintainable. It is submitted that for the purpose of granting a certificate of CBA the Commission could be concerned only with A such unions as are registered with it as industry‑wise trade unions and not any other union not being industry‑wise and having been registered with local Registrar. It appears that the appellant's case is covered by a decision of the Full Bench in Pakistan Spencer's Employees Union's case (1977 P L C 20). But in order to invoke the ruling in the cited case the appellant has to show that it has membership in all the branches of M/s. Hyderabad Electronic Limited. As there is no material presently available on record on this point, the appellant may have to be given an opportunity to produce such, material. Since the appellant's application had been decided without this opportunity, the matter will have to be remanded.

4. Mr. Mahmood Abdul Ghani appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 that is the management supports the appeal but urges for early disposal of the matter so that negotiations can be held with the appropriate CBA.

5. We, therefore set aside the impugned order and remand the matter ‑to the Single Bench for a fresh decision in the light of 1977 PLC

20. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Bench on 18‑4‑1987. S.Q/118/Lb.NI Case remanded.