2000 PLP 625 (PLC)

Date of hearing: 9th August, 1999. This is an appeal under section 37 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, against the order, dated 27‑5‑1999, passed by the learned Labour Court No.VI at Hyderabad, in Application No.69 of 1998 under section 34 of the LR.O., 1969.

2. I have head Mr: Fasahat H. Rizvi, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Muhammad Buksh Joyo, Assistant Director Labour (Trade Unions) for respondent No.1 and Rana Mehmood Ali Khan,. Representative of respondent No.2.

3. Mr: Fasahat Hussain Rizvi, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the requirements of section 22 of the I.R.O., 1969 for fulfilment of 1/3rd majority by the contesting union for determination of the Collective Bargaining Agent, has not been proved. No doubt the Assistant Director Labour, in accordance with the direction of the trial Court, upon a joint statement of the parties, had held an enquiry and thereby made a report that 1/3rd majority was proved, but the said report merits no consideration on the grounds, inter alia, that (1) the statements allegedly recorded by the Assistant Director Labour, of the workers, do not disclose the identity of the workers and (2) said statements do not bear any endorsement as to the person, who recorded the statement and whether he had read over those statements before the maker of the statement.

4. Mr. Muhammad Buksh Joyo, Assistant Director Labour (Trade Unions), Hyderabad, respondent No. 1, submits that the enquiry was held in a proper way on the direction of the learned Labour Court, statements were recorded properly of all the workers, who were produced by the applicant union respondent No.2, their names and other particulars are mentioned in their respective statements. Every worker's statement was recorded separately and got it signed by him. Statements of 76 workers out of 103, alleged to be the members of the Union, were recorded by the Assistant Director Labour, and submitted to the learned Labour Court alongwith his report. These 76 do constitute the required number of 1/3rd of the contesting union. He further submits that after the dismissal of the application by the learned Labour Court the Registrar Trade Unions started referendum proceedings in respect of which several meetings were convened but the applicant union did not turn up. They, however, chose to file an appeal in this Tribunal alongwith an application for staying the referendum, which was dismissed by this Tribunal by order, dated 14‑6‑1999. After the dismissal of the stay application, the appellants filed an application under section 22A(8)(g) of the I.R.O., 1969 before the N.I.R.C., alleging unfair labour practice, which is pending there. 5: Mr. Rana Mahmood Ali Khan, Representative of respondent No.2, referred to para. 2 of the main application, filed under section 34 of I.R.O., 1969, wherein, inter alia, it was alleged that the respondent No.2 union was registered by the Registrar, Trade Unions illegally and that should be deregistered. As such, the referendum plea is liable to be dismissed. The learned Labour Court did not agree with the submissions of the appellant and passed the order, dated 27‑5‑1999 against which the above appeal was filed.

6. On my enquiry, Mr. Fasahat H. Rizvi, learned Advocate for the appellant, made a statement at the Bar that although he had taken certain objections about the registration of the respondent No.2, but that was only by way of narration, but there was no prayer for de‑registering the said union and he even today does not for it.

6. In any case the proper mode, as provided by law, is the referendum itself which, as submitted by the Assistant Director Labour and Mr. Rana Mehmood Ali Khan, for respondent No.2, was stayed by a learned Member of the N.I.R.C. by his order, dated 19‑6‑1999.

7. In view of what has been stated above, I find no force in the appeal, it is dismissed. Announced in open Court, this the 9tb day of August, 1999. H.B.T./321/K (Lab. Trib.) Appeal dismissed.