1999 PLP 240 (PLC)

MUHAMMAD ZAMAN QURESHI (CHAIRMAN).‑‑On a petition filed by Sher Field Officers Association registered with the Registrar of Trade Unions, Rawalpindi Region, Rawalpindi under section 22‑A(8)(g i read with section 34 of the I.R.O., 1969 praying that the Management be restrained from causing injury to the employment and terms of employment of the members of the Association and more particularly the letter dated 29 1‑1997 be set aside and the Management be directed to give representation to the office‑bearers of the Association on the Promotion Committees, the Single Bench of this Commission vide decision dated 24‑5‑1997, granted the petition. The instant appeal is directed against that decision.

2. The Counsel for the appellant strongly urged that the impugned order was coram non judice because the respondent has no C.B.A. status. It being an Association of Employer, no unfair labour practice was established against the appellants through evidence. The Management had recognised appellant No.2 under section 52 of the I.R.O., 1969.

3. The Counsel for the respondent however, repelled the arguments by urging that the respondent was a duly registered trade union of employer in accordance with the provisions of I.R.O. 1969 and is a juristic person. The provisions of section 52 of the I.R.O., 1969 were meant for transitional period only and are not applicable in the presence of a registered Trade Union. Relying on 1971 PLC 507 the learned Counsel further argued that a trade union could be formed by the employer and such a union could raised an industrial dispute. The appellant No.1 in order to wreck the respondent Union, give representation to appellant No.2 on the Promotion Committees so that respondent union is destroyed.

4. On Perusal of the record, We find that the respondent is a duly registered Association of employer with the Registrar of Trade Unions, Rawalpindi Region which could sue and be sued in accordance with the provisions of section 14 of the I.R.O., 1969, while appellant No.2 admittedly has no such status. Giving representation on the Promotion Committees to an alleged office‑holder of such a body to represent the workers is a sheer act of discrimination within the meaning of section 15(1)(c) of I.R.O., 1969. The respondent has been disallowed to represent the members of the Association on the committees merely because he is an officer of registered Trade Union which was apparently done to weaken his union so that he is unable to participate in the lawful trade union activities which is an act of unfair labour practice.'

5. A bare reading of section 52 of I.R.O., 1969 also shows, "until a collective bargaining agent has been certified under the provisions of the Ordinance be performed by a registered trade union which has been recognized by the employer" (.underlining is by us). When appellant No.2 does not represent a registered trade union, how could he be recognised by the employer. This being the factual position, it is not necessary to address all the other points urged before us. We, therefore, find no defect in the order of the Single Bench. There is, thus, no merit in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./321/NIRC Appeal dismissed.