2002 PLP 283 (PLC)

This petition has been tiled by the General Secretary of Employees Union of Pakistan Insurance Corporation on behalf of the Union and originally, it was filed against Registrar, Trade Unions and Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No.5. On an application made on behalf of Messrs Pakistan Insurance Corporation; the Corporation was allowed to join the proceedings. The Corporation is the main contestant and the case of the petitioner has been contested by them.

2. Following are the prayers made in the petition: "It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:‑‑ (i) hold and declare that the petitioner union continues to be a Collective Bargaining Agent under section 22 of the IRO, 1969 for the entire period it was recognized by the employer under the provisions of labour law i.e. IRO, 1969; (ii) hold and declare that the charter of demands submitted by the petitioner union is just, valid and legal under the provisions of IRO, 1969; (iii) restrain the respondents Nos. l and 2 from taking action/proceeding under section 10(1) of the IRO, 1969 till the disposal of this petition; (iv), direct the respondent No. l to issue CBA certificate for onward period as required under section 22 of the IRO, 1969 being a sole registered Trade Union and having its membership of more than 1/3rd of the total number of workmen employed in the establishment; (v) hold that the action of the respondent No. l is unlawful and declare as illegal and unlawful; and (vi) pass any other order/orders in favour of the petitioner union against the respondents which this Hon'ble Court may deem tit and proper in the circumstances of the case"

3. Chaudhry Muhammad Ashraf, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is the union registered under the law and is acting as sole Collective Bargaining Agent since 1962 and in that capacity, it has been recognized by the employer as well as by the Wage Board. He submitted that, in 1999, a dispute arose and both the Union as well as the Management submitted charters of demands under section 26, subsection (1) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. He submitted that the petitioner union applied for issuing a formal CBA certificate but respondent No. 1, viz. Registrar, Trade Unions, has not issued such certificate. He claimed that since the petitioner is the sole registered trade union in the organization and has required number of members, it is entitled to be bargaining agent under section 22 subsection (1) of the IRO, 1969 and is entitled to such certificate under the law.

4. It is a fact not disputed by the parties that the Registrar, Trade Unions, has filed a complaint under section 10(1) of the IRO before the Sindh Labour Court. Respondent No.2, against the petitioner Mr. Mehmud Abdul Ghani, learned counsel for respondent No.3; Pakistan Insurance Corporation, submitted that the petitioner violated the provisions of IRO and, therefore, the 'case has been tiled before the Labour Court under, section 10(1) of the IRO, for cancellation of registration of the petitioner. He submitted that the case was filed 12 months back but the petitioner is not proceeding with that case and intend to defeat it through the present petition.

6. In clause (i) of the prayer, the petitioner seek a declaration about their status as Collective Bargaining Agent and, through clause (ii), a declaration is sought about validity and legality of their charter of demands. It was pointed out to Mr. Ch. Muhammad Ashraf that such declarations are beyond the scope of Article 199 of the Constitution, and, after some arguments and after going through the Constitutional provisions, he conceded that they are beyond the scope of the Constitutional jurisdiction and submitted that the petition was drafted by some other Advocates.

6. Through clause (iii) of the prayer, an interim order is sought which become, infructuous with the present decision.

7. Clauses (iv) and (v) of the prayer are for issuance of CBA Certificate by the Registrar, Trade Unions. This question is, whether the Registrar, Trade Union is bound under the law to issue the said certificate to the petitioner in the present circumstances.

8. Section 10 of the IRO authorizes Registrar, Trade Union, to make a complaint to Labour Court for cancellation of registration of a trade union in case the trade union contravenes a provision of the IRO or the Rules, or of its Constitution. The Registrar has made such a complaint before the Labour Court and it is for the Labour Court to decide whether such contravention has been made or not. But, when such a complaint is pending before the Labour Court for cancellation of registration of the Union, the Registrar would not be bound to issue CBA certificate to the said Union.

9. Mr. Ch. Muhammad Ashraf could not show the provisions of law under which the Registrar is bound to issue such certificate to the petitioner despite filing of a complaint before the Labour Court for cancellation of its registration. He submitted that pendency of the case before the Labour Court would not come in way of issuance of the certificate, but he could not support it by any logic or law. He relied upon section 22 subsection (1) of the IRO on the plea that the petitioner was the sole registered union in the organization, but the provisions does not say that if there is only one registered trade union in an organization that union is entitled to CBA certificate even if there are proceedings pending for cancellation of its registration.

10. In the circumstances mentioned above, the Registrar, Trade Union, is not bound by law to issue CBA certificate to the petitioner and, therefore, no such direction can be issued in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction. Petition is dismissed accordingly. H.B.T./P‑43/K Petition dismissed.