1987 PLP 356 (PLC)
ALL PAKISTAN RAILWAY EMPLOYERS SUPREME UNION Versus REGISTRAR, N.I.R.C.
| Citation | 1987 PLP 356 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | National Industrial Relations Commission |
| Bench Members | M.S.H. Quraishi, Chairman, |
| Parties | ALL PAKISTAN RAILWAY EMPLOYERS SUPREME UNION Versus REGISTRAR, N.I.R.C. |
| Primary Law | (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 356 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 356 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the National Industrial Relations Commission bench comprising: M.S.H. Quraishi, Chairman,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 356 (PLC) (ALL PAKISTAN RAILWAY EMPLOYERS SUPREME UNION Versus REGISTRAR, N.I.R.C.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ghulam Qadir Chaudhry for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ ‑‑‑Ss. 2(v) & 22‑‑Collective Bargaining Agent, connotation of‑‑A Collective Bargaining Agent, held, is the agent of the workmen in the Establishment in the matter o the collective bargaining. ‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Collective Bargaining Agent‑‑Certificate of declaration under S.22‑‑Appellant registered under Industrial Relations Ordinance as Trade Union of employees is not entitled to certificate as Collective Bargaining Agent‑‑While law permits formation and registration of a trade union of employees, it does not admit of a grant of a declaration as a Collective Bargaining Agent to such a union‑‑Term "Collective Bargaining Agent" held, had been made applicable only to a trade union of workmen which alone could seek a certificate under S.22, Industrial Relations Ordinance. Abdul Jamil v. Registar Trade Unions, West Pakistan Lahore PLD 1971 Lah. 220 ref.
Judgment & Decree
M.S.H. QURAISHI (CHAIRMAN).‑‑The Appellant i.e. All Pakistan Railway Employers Supreme Union, is a union registered under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, as a Trade Union of Employers. Claiming to be the only union in the Open Pine Establishment of the Pakistan Railways, it applied for declaration as Collective Bargaining Agent but the application was refused by a Single Bench on 6‑2‑1986. Which refusal was conveyed by letter dated 9‑2‑1986. The refusal has now been challenged by his appeal.
2. The reason given for the refusal is that there is no provision in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 under which Collective Bargaining Agent certificate could be granted to a trade union of employers.
3. A C.B.A. is defined in section 2(v) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, to mean, in relation to an establishment or industry, "the trade union of workmen which, under section 22, is the Agent of the workmen in the establishment or, as the case may be, industry, in the matter of collective bargaining". The definition thus leaves no room for doubt that a C. B. A. has to be a trade union of workmen. The same requirement has against been spelled out in section 22 which lays down in the condition, for entitlement to a certificate, of having "as its members not less than one‑third of the total number of workmen employed". It appears that while the law permits the formation and registration of a trade union of employers, it does not admit of grant of a declaration as a Collective Bargaining Agent to such a trade union. The term C. B. A. has been made applicable only to a trade union of workmen which alone can seek a certificate under section 22.
4. Learned counsel did not controvert this aspect of the law but sought to draw support from the provisions of sections 7, 13 and 43 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and Abdul Jamil v. Registrar Trade Unions, West Pakistan, Lahore P L D 1971 Lah.
220. Section 7 deals with requirement for registration of a trade union; section 13 with powers and functions of Registrar, while section 43 lays down who can raise an industrial dispute. According to this last section, such dispute can be raised only by a C.B.A. or an employer. None of the sections cited, therefore, is of any help nor is the question before us either of registration of a trade union, or of entitlement to raise an industrial dispute. The ruling in the aforecited Abdul Jamil's case relates only to formation of the entitlement to registration of a trade union and thus is not attracted in the present case.
5. On this view of the matter no exception can possibly be taken to the impugned order. The appeal, is, therefore, dismissed in limine. M. Y. H./78/Lb??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.