1993 PLP 706 (PLC)

‑‑‑‑S. 22‑‑‑Referendum‑‑‑Referendum held for determining Collective Bargaining Agent (C.BA.) among rival Trade Unions in Establishment was challenged on ground that voters' list was not delivered to each contestant four days before polling day‑‑‑Rule requiring delivery of voters' list four days before polling day being directory in nature, its non‑compliance would not affect entire process of referendum, particularly when objector participated in referendum without raising any objection against referendum proceedings. (c) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 22(4)(b), proviso‑‑‑Referendum held in Establishment for determining Collective Bargaining Agent (C.BA.) was challenged on ground that some employees with less than three months' period of employment; were given right of vote‑‑‑Period of employment of those employees after computing their previous period of employment in Establishment which was a seasonal factory, came to be more than three months‑‑‑Such employees, in circumstances, were rightly granted right to vote. Masood Ashraf Sheikh for Petitioner. Three unions of workers, namely, Workers Ittehad Union (Registered), hereinafter called the petitioner; Progressive Field Workers Union (Registered), hereinafter called respondent No. 5; and Workers Union, hereinafter called respondent No. 6 enrolled as their members from amongst the workers employed in the Punjab Seed Corporation, Rahimyarkhan Centre, hereinafter called the Establishment. The petitioner was Collective Bargaining Agent of the establishment from 29‑8‑1989 to 29‑8‑1991. Respondent No. 5 on 5‑9‑1991 applied to the Registrar Trade Unions, Bahawalpur, hereinafter called the respondent No. 1, for holding referendum for ~ determining the Collective Bargaining Agent (C.BA.) for the next term, whereupon respondent No. 1 called upon the aforesaid three Unions and the management of establishment vide letter, dated 14‑9‑1991 to submit list of their members and employees respectively by 18‑9‑1991. The petitioner submitted its list (Annexure `J') of 33 members; respondent No. 5 submitted a list of 37 members; respondent No. 6 submitted a list of 12 members; and the establishment submitted a list showing 61 persons as its employees/workers. Respondent No. 1 held joint meeting of the aforesaid Unions and the management of the establishment on 25‑9‑1991 in his office and after considering the objections, finalised list of 61 voters and asked the contestants of referendum to collect copy of list of voters and further notified that case of Tariq (a worker) shall be decided on 29‑9‑1991 on which date he was held to be eligible to vote in the referendum. It is noteworthy that proceedings of the meeting wherein the list of voters was prepared on 25‑9‑1991 was signed by the President and Secretary of the petitioner/Union. The referendum was held on 5‑10‑1991 in which 60 workers exercised their right of vote. Respondent No. 5 by securing 33 votes as against the petitioner who secured 27 votes, was declared as Collective Bargaining Agent. Feeling aggrieved of its defeat thereby, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition praying that as the referendum held by respondent No. 1 was against the statutory provisions, therefore, it must be declared as without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued, firstly that referendum for determining Collective Bargaining Agent has been held by Assistant Registrar, Trade Unions, whereas according to the Industrial Relations Ordinance, it is the Registrar who has authority to hold such a referendum. Secondly he argued that it was incumbent upon the Registrar Trade Unions, respondent No. 1 to send to each contestant a list of voters four days before the polling day but this requirement of law was also not fulfilled. Thirdly, he argued that 19 workers who had less than 3 months' period 'of employment in the establishment, were illegally allowed to cast their votes which materially affected the result of referendum.

3. The respondents replied that Registrar, Trade Unions, Bahawalpur Region, had authorised the Assistant Registrar to hold referendum vide letter, dated 17‑9‑1991. Regarding second objection, it was submitted that the list of voters was not collected by the petitioner although they were asked to get voters' list which was prepared in their presence; and that they raised no such objection, rather participated in the referendum by deputing an agent of theirs who signed the result sheet without making any oral or written objection before the Presiding Officer either on polling day under rule 34 of the Punjab Industrial Relations Rules, 1973. As for third objection about casting of vote by workers having less than 3 months' period of employment, it is submitted that, the establishment is a seasonal factory and those persons, whose period of employment by computing their previous service came to more than three months were allowed to cast their votes as provided under the law.

4. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, find that the referendum in question was lawfully held by Assistant Registrar under the authority and as delegatee of the Registrar as provided under subsection (13) of section 22 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, which says that the Registrar can authorise in writing any officer to perform all or any of his functions. As for the second objection i.e. the non‑delivery of voters' list to the petitioner four days before the polling day, it is found that the petitioner trade union knew the number and names of voters as it participated in the meeting held for finalising the list on 25‑9‑1991 and it had failed to collect the list despite the Registrar had asked them for it. The rule being directory in nature, its non‑compliance would not affect the entire process of referendum particularly when the petitioner, participated in the referendum without raising its little finger against the proceedings. It is now too late in the day to say so. As for the grant of right of vote to 19 employees said to be having less than three months' period of employment, suffice it to say that, their period of employment after computing their previous period of employment in the establishment (which is a seasonal factory) came to be more than three months and were, therefore, rightly granted right of vote under the law (See second proviso to clause (b) of subsection (4) of section 22 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969).

5. For the foregoing reasons there being no merit in the petition the same is hereby dismissed in limine. h.B.T./W-33/L`??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.