1972 PLP 384 (PLC)

(e) The respondent No. 3, Employees' Union, Sukkur was registered on 18th July 1970, at number 77 and declared as collective bargaining agent in March 1971. (This statement is confirmed by General Secretary Shamsul Islam of the Employees' Union, Sukkur). (f) At the time of the registration of the Employees' Union. Sukkur, there already existed a collective bargaining agent and hence the Registrar of Trade Unions, Sind could not have declared Employees' Union, Sukkur as a collective bargaining agent without following the procedure laid down in section 22 of the I. R. O., 1969, Mr. Abdul Majeed for the respondent No. 3 Employees' Union, Sukkur answers as follows :‑ (a) The applicants Central Labour Union were registered for the former Province of West Pakistan and, therefore, they cannot be deemed to have been registered in the new Province of Sind. (b) The respondent No. 3 Employees' Union, Sukkur is the only registered Trade Union in the establishment at Sukkur having membership of more than one‑third of the total workmen employed in this establishment and hence the Registrar of Trade Unions in Sind was within his jurisdiction to declare them as the collective bargaining agent. (c) The application under section 34 of I. R. O., 1969 is not maintainable because no industrial dispute is involved. Labour Officer, Muhammad Akram Brar for respondent No. 1 Chairman, West Pakistan WAPDA, Lahore states as follows :‑ (a) It is correct that the applicants Central Labour Union was registered for the whole of West Pakistan in respect of various establishments of WAPDA at various places in West Pakistan. (b) It is correct that the applicants Central Labour Union was taken as the recognised Union for all the establishments of WAPDA in West Pakistan including that at Sukkur. (c) The application under section 34 of I. R. O., 1969 is not competent because the Registrar has already issued a certificate to the Employees' Union, Sukkur and hence the applicants Central Labour Union cannot be deemed to be the collective bargaining agent at the time of filing this application. Two points arise for the determination of this application. (1) Was the Registrar of Trade Unions, Sind within his jurisdiction when he issued the impugned certificate? (2) Whether the application is maintainable under section 34 of I. R. O., 1969 by the applicants Central Labour Union? As already pointed out the applicants Central Labour Union were the registered and recognised Trade Union for all the establishments of WAPDA in West Pakistan in various places and hence they have to be allowed to perform their functions until a collective bargaining agent is ascertained in terms of the provisions of the I. R. O., 1969. This view follows directly from section 52 of the I. R. O., 1969. Again section 30 of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Ordinance, 1970 runs as follows:‑ "(2) A Trade Union which, immediately before the com mencement of this Ordinance, was a collective bargaining agent for any establishment or group of establishments shall. upon such commencement, be deemed to have been declared under the said Ordinance as amended by this Ordinance to be the collective bargaining agent for such establishment pr group." This Amendment Ordinance was published in the Gazette of Pakistan, Extraordinary, 17th October 1970. The respondent Employees' Union, Sukkur claim to have been declared as a collective bargaining agent in March 1971, i e. after the publica tion of the Amendment Ordinance. At the time of promulgation of Amendment Ordinance, therefore, the only Union which was performing the functions of the collective bargaining agent was the applicants Central Labour Union. They have, therefore, to be deemed to have been declared under the I. R. O., 1969 to be the collective bargaining agent. From this it follows that if any other union claimed to be the collective bargaining agent the Registrar of Trade Unions, Sind was bound to follow the procedure prescribed in section 22 of the I. R. O., 1969 to ascertain as to who was the collective bargaining agent. Admittedly this has not been done. Any act performed in disregard of the provisions of law has to be deemed to be mala fide. The Registrar, therefore, had no powers to issue the impugned certificate to the respondent No. 3 Employees' Union, Sukkur without complying with the provisions of section 22 of the I. R. O., 1969. The certificate will, therefore, have to be deemed to be non‑existent in the eyes of law. In this view of the matter, therefore, the applicants Central Labour Union continues to be the collective bargaining agent and hence they can maintain application under section 34 of I. R. O., 1969. I have not found any weight in the contention of Mr. Abdul Majeed that it is only in respect of an industrial dispute that an application under section 34 of I. R. O., 1969 is maintainable. Section 34 of the Ordinance read as follows :‑ "Any collective bargaining agent or any employer or work man may apply to the Labour Court for the enforcement of any right guaranteed or secured to it or him by or under any law or any award or settlement." It is clear that it is not only in respect of an industrial dispute that an application under section 34 of I. R. O., 1969 may be filed but an application may also be pressed concerning the right guaranteed or secured by or under any law. Mr. Brar for respondent No. 1 drew my attention to section 35 wherein are listed the functions which Labour Court is supposed to perform. According to him the Labour Courts can adjudicate and determine an industrial dispute or matter relating to the imple mentation or violation of a settlement which are referred to it by the Provincial Government. It is correct that section 35 of I. R. O., 1969 enumerates only those functions as are listed therein but section 34 of I. R. O. 1969 itself provides that as application in respect of any right guaranteed or secured may be made to the Labour Court and it suggests that such application has to be determined by the Labour Court. This function is covered by section 35(d) which rums as follows:- "(d) exercise and perform such other powers and functions as are or may be conferred upon or assigned to it by or under this Ordinance or any other law. It is a well‑settled principle of interpretation of statutes that in interpreting a provisions no part of the statute has to be rendered nugatory and an interpretation which gives effect to various provisions has to be preferred. I will, therefore, say that in providing for filing an application under section 34 of I. R. O., 1969 to the Labour Court in respect of rights guaranteed or secured it was intended that the Labour Court may determine such application. To sum up the application under section 34 is maintainable by the applicants Central Labour Union and the impugned certificate issued by the Registrar of Trade Unions, Sind has to be deemed to be non‑‑existent in the eyes of law. The applicants Central Labour Union, therefore, shall continue to be the collective bargaining agent in respect of the establishment of WAPDA at Sukkur also until the Registrar of Trade Unions, determines the collective bargaining agent for this establishment in accordance with the procedure laid down under section 22 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Parties will bear their own costs.