1995 PLP 47 (PLC)

Ahsanul Haque Siddiqui for Petitioner. Aijaz Ali Memon for Respondent No.

1. Bashir Awan for Respondent No.

4. MAMOON QAZI, J.‑‑‑The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that respondent No. 4 which is a trade union of workers was registered by the Registrar (respondent No. 1) in contravention of section 7(2) of the I.R.O. Section 7(2) of the I.R.O. provides as follows:‑‑ 7(2) Without prejudice to the provisions of subsection (1), a trade union of workmen shall not be entitled to registration under this Ordinance‑‑ (a) unless all its members are workmen actually engaged or employed in the industry with which the trade union is connected; and (b) where there are two or more registered trade unions in the establishment, group of establishments or industry with which the trade union is connected, unless it has as its members not less than one‑fifth of the total number of workmen employed in such establishments, group of establishments or industry, as the case may be." Although there can be no cavil with the proposition that if there are two or more registered trade unions in an establishment or group of establishments, etc. then no other trade union of workmen shall be entitled to registration under the Industrial Relations Ordinance unless it has as its members not less than one‑fifth of the total number of workmen employed in such establishment or group, as the case may be. But the question whether respondent No. 4 was registered by respondent No. 1 in contravention of the said provisions is a pure question of fact: The parawise comments and counter‑affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1 show that the said respondent got an inquiry held through his assistants and respondent No. 4 was registered as a trade union after he had been satisfied that the' union could satisfy the requirements of section 7(2). No doubt, the power to register a trade union vests in the Registrar and the expression has been defined in the Industrial Relations Ordinance and the same would not include any of his assistants but notwithstanding the same if the Registrar deputes any of his assistants to hold such an inquiry on his behalf, the same, in our opinion, would be sufficient for his satisfaction and no flaw can be found in such an inquiry. It is pertinent to point out that in the present case, counter‑affidavit has also been filed by respondent No.2 which further supports the plea taken by respondent No. 1 that an inquiry in this regard had been made and the respondent No. 4 was found to consist of the required number of members after which registration certificate was granted to it. Mr. Ahsanul Haque Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner has laid too much stress upon the report submitted by respondent No. 3 to the Registrar (Annexure A/5) which indicates that respondent No. 4 had failed to satisfy such a condition which could entitle it to registration under the Industrial Relations Ordinance but the counter‑affidavits respectively filed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2, however indicate that respondent No. 4 was registered after proper verification. Since it cannot be definitely spelt out from the circumstances enumerated above that respondent No. 4 had been registered in contravention of section 7(2) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, we are not inclined to admit this petition which is dismissed in limine together with the miscellaneous applications which are fixed for hearing today. H.B.T./T‑166/K Petition dismissed.