2025 PLP 199 (PLC)

ABDUL RASOOL MEMON, CHAIRMAN.

The above titled appeal has been filed under Section 58 of the IRA, 2012 against the impugned order dated 21.02.2024 passed in case No. 20(13)/2023 by the learned Member/RTU of the Commission at Islamabad.

2. Brief facts leading to file this appeal are that the appellant PTCL Workers Ittehad Federation filed an application under Sections 11 and 57(2) of the IRA, 2012 praying therein that the respondent union be declared ceased to exist /cancelled. The learned Single Bench decided the application with the following observations: - "

3. Perusal of the record reveals that the change of office bearers and amendments in the constitution of the respondent union have been approved by this Commission vide order dated 23.07.2012. According to Article 1 of the amended constitution, the respondent union has changed its name as Pakistan Telecommunication Muttahida Workers Alliance but name of the said trade union has not been changed in the registration certificate, so in this situation, the instant application is disposed of with the direction to the respondent union to submit application for change of name of the said trade union in the registration certificate according to approved amended constitution of the union. File be consigned to record after due completion." The appellant being aggrieved by the impugned order has filed this appeal.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned Single Bench in arbitrary manner without applying judicial mind has passed the impugned order; that the learned Single Bench has failed to appreciate the scope, extent and proprietary of the case in its proper perspective; that the learned Single Bench has passed the impugned order beyond the scope of the application/pleadings, that on merits the appellant having a strong arguable case but the learned Single Bench has non-suited the appellant without mentioning reasons which is against the law; that the impugned order has been passed in hasty manners which is against the norms of natural justice may be set aside; that the respondent union was registered in the name of Telecommunication Traffic Union in the year 2004 and in the year 2012 the said union filed an Application No. 13(56)/2012 for approval of amendments in the constitution as well as approval of its internal elections: that the name was changed as Mutahida Workers Alliance Union (respondent) but no registration certificate to such effect has been issued, that the Bench of the Commission vide order dated 01.03.2021 cancelled the registration of Pakistan Telecommunication Traffic Union; that the original named union i.e. Pakistan Telecommunication Traffic Union has been cancelled/censed to exist then how the respondent union can be termed as registered union; that the appellant despite repeated applications made for provision of certified copies of case has not been provided the same; that the respondent union has already ceased to exist and the learned Single Bench instead considering the order dated 01.03.2021 has directed the respondent union to submit application for change of name of the said trade union in the registration certificate according to the amended constitution of the union, which order has been passed in violation of law and beyond the pleadings. The learned counsel for the appellant has prayed that the appeal may be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside.

4. The labour representative for the respondent has contended that the learned Single Bench has passed a well-reasoned order warrants no interference, that the very appeal has been filed incompetently without due authorization is not maintainable; that even otherwise the appellant having no locus standi to question the internal affairs of other union; that the respondent union changed its name in the year 2012 from Pakistan Telecommunication Traffic Union to Pakistan Telecommunication Muttahida Workers Alliance and questioning its status at this belated stage after about 11 years is not permissible under the law; that the Bench of the Commission vide order dated 23.07.2012 has approved the amendments made in the Constitution of the union, and the said amendments along with approval of the internal election of the union were conveyed to the respondent union vide letter dated 26.07.2012 which was addressed to the 'Secretary General, Pakistan Telecommunication Muttahida Workers Alliance"; that the respondent union is functioning in accordance with law and under the amended name and style and the learned Single Bench has rightly observed in the impugned order with regard to issuance of registration certificate. The Labour Representative for the respondent has prayed that the appeal may be dismissed.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant and the Labour Representative for the respondent have been heard and record perused.

6. The appellant union was registered in the year 2004 in the name and style as Pakistan Telecommunication Traffic Union and in the year 2012 the said union moved application for amendment in the constitution before the Commission and the name of the union was changed as Pakistan Telecommunication Muttahida Workers Alliance. The Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited filed an Application No. 20(22)/2018 under Section 11 of the IRA, 2012 against the respondent union for its cancellation. The learned Single Bench vide order dated 01.03.2021 has rejected the application filed for cancellation of the union on the ground that the respondent union has submitted change of office bearers in case No. 13(35)/2021 which has been approved. The applicant PTCL assailed the order before the Full Bench of the Commission through Appeal No. 12R(31)/2021 and the Full Bench vide order dated 14.06.2022 dismissed the appeal with the following observations:- "In the light of the referred case law it is held that the employer having no locus standi to question the registration of the union except providing the list of its employees as required, in order to ascertain the authenticity of the member, workman actually engaged or otherwise. The process of registration of unions provided in Chapter-II of the IRA, 2012 and particularly. it's Sections 6 to 9 deals with the matters and there is no scope of filling objections to the registration of any Trade Union or becoming party in the proceedings or filing of cancellation application. When it has been held by the Superior Courts of the Country that the employer or any other having no locus standi to raise objections during the process of registration of a union, then how any right at the subsequent stage to the employer or any other (who cannot enter during the process of registration) is available to them to question the formation/legality of the union and the order of the RTU or Bench of the Commission as the case may be." The appellant Federation has not proved itself the aggrieved party in the matter and the superior Courts of the Country in a number of the judgments held that the matter of registration of a union is one between a trade union applying for registration and the Registrar and other including the pre-existing trade unions or the employer having no say in the matter. In the instant matter the important issue is that whether the appellant i.e. the union having locus standi to challenge the registration of the other union. The Superior Courts of the Country has discouraged the interference of the employer or any other in the matter of registration of the union. In this regard reliance is placed on the case titled WAPDA Town Employees Union through President/Secretary v. WAPDA Employees Cooperative Housing Society, Gujranwala through Secretary and 2 others, reported as 2011 PLC 18 in which the Honorable High Court, Lahore has observed that the matter of registration of a trade union is only between the trade union which apply for registration and the Registrar Trade Unions and the employer and the others have not concern. For convenience the relevant part of the order is reproduced herein below: "

9. A simple controversy between the parties is as to whether the consent of employer of a trade union is necessary before its registration. The law laid down by honorable Supreme Court provides that the employer or even a trade union had no locus standi to maintain the grievance petition merely because objection raised by them had not been attended by the Registrar or the employer or the trade union had not been associated with the process of registration. One trade union could not be an aggrieved party by registration of another union because such action would not violate any of the right granted by the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 to the former. The matter of registration of a trade anion is only between the trade union which apply for registration and the Registrar of Trade Unions and the employer or others have not concern, whatsoever, in the matter. The employers could not claim any locus standi to challenge the decision of the Registrar merely on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was provided to him or objection raised before the Registrar of Trade Unions was not considered before taking such decision. I am fortified by ratio decidendi laid down in the cases reported as 1998 PLC 500, 2006 PLC 288 and 2007 PLC 521." Emphasis added. The Honorable Karachi High Court while hearing a case titled National Beverage Employees Union v. Registrar, Trade Union, Government of Sindh and 2 others, reported as 1986 PLC 533, has held that no other trade union has any concern or say in the matter of registration of another trade union. The relevant para of the order is reproduce herein below:- "It is very clear from the provisions mentioned above that the legislature has laid down positively that registration of a Trade Union is strictly a matter between Trade Union seeking registration and the Registrar and another Trade Union has legally speaking no say in the matter and has no locus standi to raise any objection of that stage. This become more clear when it is found that only the affected Trade Union whose application for registration is rejected is allowed to file appeal before the Labour Court to the exclusion of all others. It is therefore, clear that no other Trade Union has any concern or say in the matter of registration of another Trade Union. It is the duty of Registrar under section 8 to see that if all the requirements of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 have been complied then he must register the Union, which has applied for registration but if there is contravention of the relevant provisions then he may raise objections himself." Emphasis Added. The same dictum has been laid down by the Hon'ble Islamabad High Court, Islamabad while deciding a Writ Petition bearing No.16 of 2015 titled All Pakistan SRBC Workers Union v. National Industrial Relations Commission and others vide order dated 16.02.2015 and the Hon'ble Lahore High Court, Lahore in a case titled WALL's Employees Union (Lever Brothers now Uni-Lever Brothers) v. Registrar of Trade Unions, District Kasur and 2 others, reported as 2007 PLC 521.

7. The Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan in case titled Essa Cement Industries Workers Union v. Registrar Trade Unions, Hyderabad Region, Hyderabad and 4 others, reported as 1998 PLC 500 has observed as follow:- "

9. It is therefore, follows that neither the employer nor a trade union already existing in the same establishment can claim locus standi to challenge the decision of the Registrar merely on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was provided to it or an objection raised by it before the Registrar was not considered before such decision."

8. The appellant Federation in the light of case law referred herein above, having no say in the matter and not an aggrieved party. The member or office bearer of rival union/Federation cannot be permitted to interfere in the internal affairs of a union, because such like interference if allowed will open a flood gate of litigation and would amount to frustrate the object of the formation of a union,

9. In view of what has been discussed dove, we are unable to persuade with the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, the appeal in hand in hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. File be consigned to record room after its due completions. MQ/1/NIRC Appeal dismissed.