1996 PLP 97 (PLC)

Mushtaq Ahmad v. Punjab Seed Corporation etc. 1994 PLC 306 and Messrs Zeal Pak Cement etc. v. Aijaz Ahmad and 51 others 1991 PLC 862 ref. (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss. 3; 6, 7 & 8‑‑‑Trade Union‑‑‑Establishment and registration of‑‑ Fundamental right of employees of an establishment to formulate a trade union in the establishment in accordance with provisions of law and also to get it registered by Competent Authority if all requirements for registration of union were duly fulfilled, especially when there existed no union in the establishment‑‑‑Apprehension of employees who formulated a union in the establishment, and had applied for its registration, that employer being annoyed of function of a trade union in their establishment, would be committing some acts of unfair labour practice within meaning of S. 15 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 with the employees in order to restrain them from such formation, being very genuine employees, had the right to invoke jurisdiction of National Industrial Relations Commission and could seek protection against the employer for commission of acts of unfair labour practice by them. M.AK Azmati for Petitioners. MA. Ghani for Respondents. This is a petition under section 22A(8)(g) of the I.R.O., 1969 wherein the petitioners who are the employees of the respondent's establishment, contend that they have formulated a new trade union in the Establishment of Daelim Industrial Company Limited, Hub Balochistan as there existed no union in the respondent's establishment and in this connection they have filed the application before the Registrar of National Industrial Relations Commission. It is contended that the application for registration of the union is under consideration of the learned Registrar, N.I.R.C. and due to this reason the respondents ‑ are annoyed with the petitioners, therefore, apprehends the Commission of unfair labour practice by the respondents. Under such circumstances the petition was registered and interim injunction order was issued in favour of the petitioners.

2. The respondents have contested the petition by way of filing of the written statement wherein certain preliminary legal objections as to the maintainability of the petition were also raised.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. M.AK Azmati, and Mr. MA. Ghani, Advocate for the respondents and have also considered the documents filed on record with their help.

4. The petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Commission jointly by the petition under section 22‑A(8)(g) of the I.R.O., 1969. Under the said provision there is no bar for filing of any joint application therefore, the objection of the learned counsel for the respondents that the application is not maintainable under the provision of section 25‑A of the I.R.O., 1969 is groundless. This Commission is neither bound to entertain a petition, under the provision of section 22‑A(8)(g) of the I.R.O., 1969, with the prerequisite condition of grievance notice under the provision of section 25‑A of the I.R.O., 1969, nor is bound to observe the procedure of section 25‑A of the I.R.O., 1969 only while dealing with the cases of individual grievances but also can adopt any of the, procedures, provided either by section 25‑A, section 34 of the I.R.O., 1969 or by the N.I.R.C. (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973, framed under section 22‑F of the I.R.O., 1969. Therefore, the non‑compliance of the prerequisite condition of service of notice under section 25‑A of the I.R.O., 1969 cannot take away the jurisdiction of this Commission in any manner and in cases of individual grievances even, the workman is not required to filful the prerequisite conditions of section 25‑A of the I.R.O., 1969, before approaching this Commission under section 22‑A(8)(g) of the I.R.O., 1969. 1 am supported by the view of learned Senior Member in case titled as Mushtaq Ahmad v. Punjab Seed Corporation etc. reported in 1994 PLC page

306. Besides, there is no specific bar in filing of a joint application under any provision of law, therefore, there is no reason as to why the petitioners be deprived of their rights to approach this Court. I get support from the reported case of M/s. Zeal Pak Cement etc. v. Aijaz Ahmad and 51 others reported in 1991 PLC 86''.

5. There are certain admitted facts of the case, that the present petitioners are the employees of the respondent's Establishment and being employees, they have formulated a trade union. For the registration of the same, they have filed an application before the Registrar of industry ‑wise Trade Unions, N.I.R.C., Islamabad which is still pending. Thus, being the employees of the respondent's establishment it becomes one of the fundamental right of the petitioners to formulate a trade union in accordance with the provision of law and also to get it registered by the competent Authority, if all the requirements for the registration of the union are duly fulfilled. It is also an admitted feature of the case that there existed no union in the establishment of Daelim Industrial Company Limited/respondents. Therefore, the apprehension of the petitioners seems to be very genuine that the respondents, being annoyed of the formation of a trade union in their establishment, will‑be committing some acts of unfair labour practice, within the meaning of section 15 of the I.R.O., 1969 with the petitioners, in order to restrain them from such formation. However, it is necessary to observe that the petitioners will have no cause of action to file the present petition if their application for registration of the newly formulated trade union is refused by the Registrar of Industry‑wise Trade Unions. But still, until the pendency of the same, the petitioners have the right to invoke the jurisdiction of the Commission and can seek protection' against the respondents for the Commission of acts of unfair labour practice within the meaning of section 15 of the I.R.O.,1969.

6. As a result of the above discussion the petition is partly accepted to the extent that the respondents are restrained from termination, dismissal, removal from services of the petitioners by way of unfair labour practice, in violation of provision of section 15 of the I.R.O., 1969. The petitioners are not entitled to any other relief at the moment. The petition is disposed of without any orders as to costs. H.B.T./253/NIRC Order accordingly.