1995 PLP 420 (PLC)

(i) Railway Mail Service. (ii) Post Office. (iii) Postal Life Insurance. (iv) Postmaster General Office, It is necessary to observe here that after another long round of litigation the abovementioned four CBUs were again formulated and continued by another judgment of NIRC dated 3‑1‑1983 and since then these four CBUs are functioning in the establishment.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that employees who are performing their duties in the establishment from Grade‑1 to Grade‑6 are liveried staff and their functions and duties are very much different from the function and duties of the other staff i.e. from Grade‑7 to Grade‑

9. Therefore, a separate CBU containing all the employees from Garde‑1 to Grade‑6 is necessary to be the established as also the employees of Grade‑1 to Grade‑6 are generally provided uniforms by the establishment and therefore are called liveried staff as such there is distinction of liveried and non‑liveried staff.

6. However, in order to examine the present application for creation of a new CBU in the PMG Offices I deemed it proper to reproduce the criteria principle rather requirements narrated by section 22‑EE of the IRO, 1969 which are as under:‑‑ "22‑EE. Determination etc. of Collective Bargaining Unit.‑‑ (1) Where the Commission, on an application made in this behalf by a reference made by the Federal Government, after holding such inquiry as it deems fit is satisfied that for safeguarding the interest of the establishment belonging to the same employer and the same industry in relation to collective bargaining, it is necessary, just and feasible to determine one or more Collective Bargaining Units of such workmen in such establishment or group, it may having regard to the distribution of workers existing boundaries of the components of such establishment or group facilities of communication general convenience sameness or similarity of economic activity and other of cognate factors‑‑ (a) determine and certify one or more Collective Bargaining Units in such establishments or group; (b) specify the modifications which, in consequence of the decision under this section, will take effect in regard unions affected by such decision ad certification of collective bargaining agents amongst such unions and federations, nominations or election of shop stewards, and workers representatives for participation in the management of the factories, if any, affected by such decision; , (c) specify the date or dates from and the period, for which all or any of such changes shall take effect..." After going through above‑quoted provision the philosophy of liveried or liveried staff i.e. a division on the basis of colour of cloth or‑ upon the basis of production of uniform by the establishment to its employees is very difficult to be fitted anywhere in the said provision and otherwise has got no legal justification. Besides, neither it reconciles and corresponds with the requirement of section 22‑EE of the IRO, 1969 nor has got any sound basis for the creation of a new CBU. This theory is also not applicable as the liveried and non‑liveried staff is not determined by any legislation rules or regulations but at the discretion of the Establishment i.e. it is the establishment who decides to provide uniform to a particular category of employees and, therefore, it is always changeable determination. Now if the establishment decides not to provide uniform to 100 employees then it means that the said employees will be out of such CBUs, if so determined which will create certain legal problems not only for the establishment but also for the workers and Collective Bargaining cannot be at all feasible in such circumstances. In the evidence produced by the petitioner there is nothing to differentiate between the two categories i.e. liveried and non‑liveried staff. In the light of the requirements under section 22‑EE of the IRO, 1969 the petitioner has also failed to establish that how the Collective Bargaining cannot be done in one CBU for the liveried or non‑liveried staff.

7. Similar is the positron with the philosophy of the distinction between the staff of Grade‑1 to Grade‑6 and other staff of upper grade. Neither such distinction corresponds and reconciles with the requirements of the provision of section 22‑EE of the IRO, 1969 nor there is any evidence which could establish that Collective Bargaining is not possible without such distinction. Here it is necessary to observe that presently 4 different CBUs are existing in the establishment since 15‑12‑1977 and after examining the record of the case I do not feel the need to disturb the same. I also do not feel any need to reproduce the entire reasons and justifications in the creation of 4 CBUs as this job has already been done, very competently, in the above‑quoted two judgments.

8. Consequently, the petition is dismissed without any orders as to costs, the Registrar is directed to hold referendum in the already existing CBUs immediately, subject to his convenience. H.B.T./221/NIRC Petition dismissed.