1990 PLP 37 (PLC)

Zaeemul Farooq, A.A: G and Ch. Mohammad Abdulla for Respondent No.

2. Date of hearing: 22nd February, 1989. This writ petition assails the order dated 26‑3‑88 of the Registrar, Trade Unions, Gujranwala viz. respondent No.l, whereby he has registered respondent No.2 i.e. Workers Union, Silk Industry, Kamoke, as a trade union for 17 Silk Industries, details whereof have been recorded at the back of the Registration Certificate issued pursuant to the impugned order.

2. It has been mainly contended that respondent No.2 has been registered as an industry wise trade union for many silk industries and under Section 22‑A (8)(d) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, such an industry wise trade union could only be registered by the National Industrial Relations Commission and thus respondent No 1, the local Registrar of trade unions appointed by the Provincial Government, lacked jurisdiction in the matter.

3. Subsection (8) of Section 22‑A ibid enumerates the functions of the National Industrial Relations Commission. Clause (d) of subsection (8) reads to register industry wise trade unions, federations of such trade unions and federations at the national level"

4. It has been explained in the explanation under section 22‑A ibid that the expression industry wise trade union, federation of such trade unions and federations at national level, referred to a trade union the membership of which extends to establishments in more than one Province and a federation of trade unions whose membership extends to registered trade unions in more than one Province. ,

5. In the present case, as already stated, the membership of respondent No 2, extends only to 17 silk industries located at Kamoke District Gujranwala, in the Province of Punjab. This trade union has no membership in any other Province. This trade union, as per explanation under Section 22‑A, is not an industry wise trade union. In this view of the matter in regard to such a trade union National Industrial Relations Commission has not the exclusive jurisdiction re: registration. Reference has been invited on behalf of the petitioner to clause (a) of subsection (8) of Section 22‑A and to subsection (11) of the same section. Clause (a) provides that it shall be the function of the Commission to promote the formation of trade unions of workers within the same industry whether in establishments within a Province or in more than one Province and federation of such trade unions. Subsection (11) of course provides that no Registrar, Labour Court or Tribunal shall take any action or entertain any application or proceedings in respect of any matter, which falls within the jurisdiction of the National Industrial Relations Commission.

6. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioners, when analysed in minor details, appears to be devoid of any merit. Promotion of the formation of the trade union of workers is different from the registration of trade union of workers. By virtue of clause (a) of subsection (11) of Section 22‑A (supra), it has been made the function of the Commission to promote the formation of trade unions within the same industry whether in establishment of a Province or in more than one Province, but regarding registration exclusive power has been given to National Industrial Relations Commission only in regard to industry wise trade unions, federation of such trade unions and federation at national level. Such types of trade unions and federation have been explained in the, explanation under section 22‑A and as per that explanation only that trade union falls within the ambit of expression industry wise trade union whose membership extends to the establishment in more than one Province. It thus becomes evident that respondent No.2 cannot be termed as industry wise trade union and this trade union can, therefore, lawfully be registered by the Zonal Registrar appointed by the Provincial Government in exercise of his powers under Section 8 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The writ petition has thus no merit and is accordingly dismissed, but there shall be no order as to costs. H.B.T./A‑725/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed,