1993 PLP 55 (PLC)

A.G. Siddiqui for Petitioner. Syed Sarfraz Ahmed, A.A‑G. for Respondents Nos. 1 to

3. Rizwan Ahmed for Respondent No.

2. Date of hearing: 19th September, 1991. In this Constitutional petition contention from the side of the petitioner, who is the Principal Secretary of the P.I.A. Institute of Planetaria, Astronomy and Cosmology, is that such institute is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and that the aims and objects of the institute are education, advancement and promotion of astronomy and cosmology. Such institute is said to be run on no profit no loss basis, charging only reasonable fees for services to generate day to day revenues, besides financial assistance secured from the P.I.A.C. Government of Pakistan. Provincial Government, private and public institutions etc. In this contention: the said institute is not an industry as contemplated in the Industrial Relation Ordinance nor an establishment, as defined, and, as such, the respondent Registrar of Trade Unions, in the context of the institute, was not competent to register the respondent No. 2‑union nor such union was entitled to registration in terms of sections 7 and 8 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. As soon as the institute, under reference, came to know of the registration of the respondent No. 2‑union, the aforenoted position was brought to the notice of the Registrar yet that respondent proceeded to declare the union, as Collective Bargaining Agent in terms of section 22(1) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. Mr. Rizwan Ahmed Siddiq appearing for the respondent No. 2 union, maintained that since the institute in question is admittedly charging fees, it is patently engaged in commercial activities and should be treated as an establishment within the terms of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, entitling the respondent No. 2‑union to registration and consequential declaration as Collective Bargaining Agent for the establishment. Mr. A.G. Siddiqui, appearing for the petitioner‑institute, has relied on the case of Holy Family Hospital v. III Sindh Labour Court, PLD 1979 Kar. 529 holding that mere recovery of charges does not change the basic character of a body if such body is not engaged in a profit making activity and profits, if any, are not distributed amongst the directors or members. It is difficult in these proceedings to decide whether or not the institute involved here is or is not an industry or can or cannot be termed as an establishment within the meanings of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. Such question, essentially, lies within the province of respondent No.1 Registrar who, besides being exclusively concerned with the registration of a union in the establishment, if any, is also, if a union has wrongly been registered in contravention of the provisions in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, competent to initiate a complaint for cancellation of registration in accordance with section 10 of that Ordinance. However, in that the respondent No. 1 has not considered the objections of the petitioner‑institute nor has accorded any hearing on the question the rejection of the petitioner's grievance cannot be termed to be in accordance with law. On the point, reference may conveniently be made to the decisions of this Court in S.N.H. Industrial (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Registrar, Trade Unions (Constitutional Petitions Nos. 1 to 4 of 1991), Hilal Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Registrar, Trade Unions (Constitutional Petitions Nos. S‑16 to S‑24/90) and Holiday Inn Workers' Union v. Registrar, Trade Unions (Constitutional Petition No. S‑22 of 1987 = 1992 PLC 23). Accordingly, the respondent No. 1 should deal with the caveat of the petitioner in accordance with law. However, in so far as declaration of Collective Bargaining Agent is concerned, that itself will stand till such time as the cancellation of registration, if any, is not effected in terms of a complaint, if any, filed under section 10 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. In similar manner, the petitioner‑institute would consider the genuine demands, if any, of the union so long as it stands registered and deal with them sympathetically but, at the same time, the union, till the determination at the level of the Registrar or the decision of the complaint, under section 10 of the Ordinance, whichever be later, shall not go on strike. In the foregoing terms this petition stands allowed but only partly. H.B.T./F‑192/K Order accordingly.