1993 PLP 771 (PLC(CS))

Date of hearing: 28th April, 1993. Succinctly stated, this appeal/revision application against the order of the Labour Court No. V‑ Karachi, has arisen in the following circumstances.

2. The respondent No. l claiming to be the `Collective Bargaining Agents' of the applicant had per letter dated 7‑1‑1993 served a notice under section 26(1) of I.R.O., 1969 enclosing therewith the 'Charter of their Demands'. Objection was conveyed to the said respondents by the management inter alia on the ground that there was a challenge to their status as a 'Collective Bargaining Agent' pending before the Labour Court at the instance of one Majeebuddin Fatimi. Undeterred the said respondents on the 11th February sent a letter notifying to call a strike on the 25th of February unless their demands were fully met, copy whereof was sent to the Labour Directorate. On the 16th February a letter was received from the Conciliator/Assistant Director (Conciliation), Karachi for holding a meeting to resolve the dispute. The Hotel authorities namely Pearl Continental Hotel thereupon filed an application under section 34, I.R.O. before the Labour Court No. V at Karachi with the prayer that the industrial dispute raised by respondent No. 1 be declared illegal as‑the respondent No. 1 were not a validly constituted body and could not function as 'Collective Bargaining Agent'. It was accompanied by an application for the grant of injunction. Ad interim injunction was granted but after hearing the parties the Labour Court vacated the same and dismissed the application resulting in this appeal/revision application.

3. Mr. Latif Saghar, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the petition filed under section 34 was incompetent as the management could not interfere in the trade union activities. But as the matter is still pending adjudication before the Labour Court 1‑will desist from commenting on it. I am, however, of the opinion, that there is no merit in the appeal, as it cannot, be said that a prima facie case has been made out.

4. It is true the respondent No. l were determined the Collective Bargaining Agent of the Intercontinental Hotel on 7‑5‑1970. That time the hotel was being run in the name and style of Hotel Intercontinental, Karachi. Then in the early eighties, there was a change in the management and the hotel came to be known as Pearl Continental Hotel, Karachi, However, once the change had come about in the name of the Hotel there was an amendment in the constitution of the Union also on the 19‑9‑1985, by which the name of the union was changed from Hotel Intercontinental Workers' Union, Karachi to Pearl Continental Hotel Workers' Union as evidenced by R/14. This change in the constitution was duly notified to the Registrar of Trade Unions and was accepted vide letter dated 30‑10‑1985, which has been placed on the record.

5. In early 1987 a Charter of Demands' had been raised against the applicants by respondent No. I and a settlement was arrived at between the parties on 2‑3‑1987. It might be noted that the parties to the settlement were "the Pearl Continental Hotel, Karachi" and "the Pearl Continental Hotel, Karachi Workers' Union, officially and legally registered with Registration No.1248 as Collective Bargaining Agent etc." There was another settlement in early 1991 in which the respondent' No. l had taken part as Collective Bargaining Agents. All these documents have been placed on the record. There are other documents also namely the notice of strike dated 16‑3‑1991, the Conciliation Meeting in 1991, the Minutes of the Joint Meeting, dated 13‑12‑1992 etc. Even the change of the Union's office‑bearers was duly accepted by the respondent No. 2 on 23‑2‑1993.

6. It is also to be noted that the ad interim injunction granted to Mujeebuddin Fatimi referred to earlier has also been vacated by the Labour Court.

7. In the face of all this, in my humble opinion it is not possible to say that the appellants have succeeded in making out a prima facie case.

8. The impugned order is not open to any exception. I will, therefore, affirm the same and dismiss the appeal/revision application H.B.T./2206/Lb.S Appeal/revision dismissed.