1991 PLP 366 (PLC)

Date of hearing: 16th October, 1989. Under this Revision Application the suo motu revision jurisdiction of this Tribunal under section 38(34) is invoked and it is prayed that this Tribunal may call for record and proceedings of Application No.8 of 1987 pending in the learned Sindh Labour Court No.1 to examine the legality and propriety of the order passed by the learned Labour Court on 5-3-1989, whereby the learned Presiding Officer, on the application of the applicant raising legal objection challenging the maintainability of application under section 32(3-a) of IRO, 1969, passed an order that the objections would be considered at final stage after the evidence was recorded.

2. I have heard Mr. Mehmood Abdul Ghani, learned representative for the applicant and Mr. Ch. Muhammad Ashraf, Advocate for the respondent and have also gone through the record and proceedings and the impugned order.

3. It appears that the applicant has factory at Korangi and Head Office at `Al-Haroon Building' at Garden Road. The main objections of Mr. Mehmood Abdul Ghani are three fold. Firstly that there being one `C.B.A.' in existence since 1976 in the establishment of the applicants, which is named as `Labour Union', the second `C.B.A.' Certificate could not have been granted by the Registrar to the respondent union. Secondly that the total number of membership of the respondent is only 11 out of which 8 are `office-bearers' which is in violation of Rule 5 of Industrial Relations (Sindh) Rules, 1973. Thirdly that the strike notice served by the respondent was not in accordance with Form `U' as required under Rule 68 of the said Rules.

4. The respondents claim, that they are a separate union which has been granted `C.B.A. Certificate' for the employees of the applicant establishment in their `Al-Haroon Building' Office, whereas other trade union is `C.B.A.' for the workmen working in the `Factory' of the establishment at Korangi. It is thus contended that the applicants have two establishments. Mr. Mehmood Abdul Ghani contended, that the respondent union has also one member at the factory and Labour Union has some members working at `Al-Haroon Building'.

5. It will be seen that the main contention of Mr. Mahmood Abdul Ghani is that the respondent not being legally constituted could not have served strike notice and could not have filed application under section 32(1-A) which requires strike notice should be valid.

6. All the questions that are raised are mixed questions of fact and law. The relevant law could be applied only when the facts are determined. Ch. Muhammad Ashraf pointed out, that the objections raised by Mr. Mehmood Abdul Ghani before the learned Labour Court, were also raised by him before the Registrar of Trade Unions, which were rejected by his order, dated 27-12 1986.

7. Mr. Mehmood Abdul Ghani has relied upon the case of Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner v. Mannu Khan 1973 SCMR 62, wherein their Lordships have observed that `the Tribunal's jurisdiction is determinable at commencement and not at conclusion of proceedings'. In that case the only question for determination was whether the powers of the concerned Authority had been notified. Such determination did not require any recording of evidence but was dependent upon production of the notification. That case obviously is distinguishable from the instant case which requires recording of evidence before the determination of legal objections raised by Mr. Mehmood Abdul Ghani. Mr, Mehmood Abdul Ghani submitted, that the case may be remanded back to the learned Labour Court with the direction that he may record the evidence on the limited question of facts raised in the legal objections and not full evidence which would be very lengthy and may consume more time. Ch. Muhammad Ashraf submitted the matter is pending since 1986 before the Conciliator and since 1987 before the Labour Court and it has already dragged on for three years which in fact defeats the spirit of Labour Laws, which ensure speedy disposal of disputes between the employees and the employers.

8. Considering all the facts and submissions of the learned counsel I am of the opinion the legal objections raised by Mr. Mahmood Abdul Ghani can be decided only after evidence was recorded and when evidence is being recorded in view of the fact that nearly three years have already passed, the evidence be recorded in full so that matter may be finally disposed of.

9. The Revision Application is, accordingly dismissed. 1566/Lb.S. Petition dismissed.