1992 PLP 486 (PLC)

(a) Guards (b) Saloon Attendants?? (c) Gangmen (d) Clerks (e) Signalmen (f)???????? Stores III. Similarly several unions categorywise in nature are registered in Postal Department such as: (a) Post Offices (b) R.M.S. (c) Postal Life Insurance (d) Director General's Office (IV). In State Bank of Pakistan there are separate unions of clerks and non-clerks except in Islamabad, Lahore and Sukkur. They were previously called Class III and Class IV unions. (V). There are other establishments where separate unions on the basis of class and occupation are registered. It may be recalled that PIAC was covered under the I.R.O., 1969, the Pilots had their own union in the name of Pakistan Airlines Pilots Association. The Flight Engineers and Flight Navigators of PIA had their own union in the name of FENA i.e. Flight Engineers and Navigators Association. Both PLPA and FENA were registered with NIRC. Kindly also refer the following provisions of law: (1) Definition of trade union as given under section 2(xxvi) which lays down that a trade union is any combination of workmen. . (2) Definition of Collective Bargaining Agent as defined under section 2(v) of the IRO, 1969 which lays down that a CBU can be formed of a class of workers. (3) Section 3 which deals with formation of Association and lays down that workers can form and join Association of their own choosing."

3. As for the order of the Full Bench of the NIRC in Case No.12(44)/84, it rejected the appeal and allowed two categorywise trade unions to retain their categorywise character in a CBU. Learned representative states that had it been against law to register categorywise trade unions, then the Full Bench would not have allowed that illegal practice to persist. This judgment however, does not discuss this (present) issue and could not therefore be cited as precedent. I would rely on the dictum of Muhammad Afzal Lone, J. of Lahore High Court in case of Agro Marketing Corporation Limited, Lahore Pakistan and two others PLD 1982 Lahore page 20 at page 25, in which it was held that a judgment is an authority for the points mooted and discussed in it.

4. As for the categorywise unions of All Pakistan Telecommunication Line Staff Union and Pakistan Telecommunication Engineering Staff Union as also the categorywise unions of the Postal Department or the State Bank of Pakistan the same have been registered in their respective Collective Bargaining Units (CBU) which had been declared in these establishments under section 22-EE. The provisions of section 22-EE are however special provisions, which override the normal and general provisions of IRO, 1969 in regard to registration of a union under clause (b) of subsection (1) of section 22-EE. The `categorywise' unions in these C.B.Us have been registered as a result of formation of C.B.Us in those establishments, which is not the case of APP Union of Journalists. This plea is therefore untenable.

5. As for the Railways since no specific instance has been cited and no unions have been named, the argument is vague and unspecific. In any case even if a union has been wrongly registered, in past, it could not possibly be a precedent for authority to repeat the same mistake or illegality at present or in future. Therefore, even if the unions in the Railways or the PIA have been registered on categorywise or craft basis, in violation of section 3(a) of the IRO, 1969, it would not be a valid precedent, because illegal action could never be a precedent. The argument that since the definition of "trade union" in section 2(xxvi) (ibid) is that it means any combination of workmen ....",? therefore words "any combination" are wide enough to include a union of one category of workers is without any force. This interpretation negates the provision of section 3(a) which provides that workers shall have right to organise without any distinction. A craft or categorywise union such as the union proposed to be registered, is essentially divisive of collective bargaining strength of the totality of workers in an establishment. It promotes disunity instead of unity and is directed towards securing or protecting the narrow interests of their own segment of founding workers. The whole scheme of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 is to prevent such fissiparous tendencies among workers as they dissipate the bargaining strength of a union. A CBA, for instance, is the union commanding the vote of majority of workers under section 22(9)(c)'of IRO, 1969. It is required to bargain on behalf of all and not a class of workers of an establishment, because a settlement concluded by it is binding on all workers under section 39(1)(d) of IRO, 1969. A craft or category-wise union would be structurally unable to conclude satisfactory settlements and infuse confidence among the class of workers, whom it does not represent and own as members.

6. The argument that definition of CBA under section 2(v) lays down that a CBU can be formed of a class of workers as written is textually incorrect. However as already explained the case of a CBA in a- CBU is different and not applicable to the present case. Similarly the submission that section 3 (ibid) lays down that workers can form and join associations of their own choosing, does not warrant registration of trade unions on categorywise or craft basis as it is based on incomplete reading of the text of section 3(a)(ibid) which provides that workers shall form such unions without any distinction. Thus the law as it is, discourages the erosion of collective bargaining strength of workers by one or more classes among them.

7. Since the present provision of Rule 5 or the constitution of the union violates the provisions of section 3(a) of the IRO, 1969, in that it maintains distinction between workers and workers by not allowing non-Journalists of the same establishment to be the members of the union, this application for registration is rejected under section 8(1) of the IRO, 1969. H.B.T./168/N.I.R.C.??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Application rejected.