2011 PLP 142 (PLC)

SHAHID ANWAR BAJWA, J.

This Constitutional Petition has been filed with the following prayers:

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the conduct of respondent No.5 in interfering with the affairs of the elected office-bearers of the Union may be declared to be illegal, violative of the principles of natural justice and thus without any lawful authority with the same consequential relief against the other respondents, who are supporting respondent No.5 specially the conduct of PIA management not depositing the deducted amount under check off system in the account of the CBA Union of which, the petitioner is General Secretary. The petitioners in this petition claim to be the office bearers of a trade union by the name of Peoples Unity of PIA Employees. Petitioner No.1 claims himself to be the General Secretary and petitioner No.2 claims himself to be the Vice-President. There is a clear dichotomy in law between trade union and its members or office bearers in Karachi Pipe Mills Employees Union Karachi v. Karachi Pipe Mills Ltd., Karachi 1992 SCMR 36, the honourable Supreme Court clearly noted this dichotomy. Attention of learned counsel for the petitioner was invited to section 14 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 and to subsection (1) thereof which in the following words:-- "Every registered trade union shall be a body corporate by the name under which it is registered, shall have perpetual succession and a common seal and the power to contract and acquire, hold and dispose of property, both movable and immovable and shall by the same name sue or be sued." This section indicates that every registered trade union shall be a body corporate by the name under which it has been registered. Learned counsel for the petitioner conceded that trade union is a corporate aggregate and is therefore a distinct and separate person from its members or office bearers. However, learned counsel submitted that under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 even an individual office bearer can file a petition and it is to be deemed to be a petition filed on behalf of the trade union. We are unable to agree. We have not been able to find any provision in the Industrial Relations Ordinance for the proposition submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Moreover the learned counsel was unable to place on record or point out any authority in support of such a contention. In our considered view, if individual office-bearers are allowed to institute proceedings in the name of a trade union it would result in total chaos. Every trade union has a constitution and such matter are regulated by the constitution and even if there is no provision in the constitution, the affairs of the trade union are entrusted to its executive, as defined in section 2(x) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 which is in the following words:

"Executive" means the body by whatever name called, to which the management of the affairs of a trade union is entrusted by its constitution." Reading of this section means that affairs can be entrusted only to a body and not to an individual. In Democratic Workers Union CBA v. State Bank of Pakistan 2002 PLC (C.S.) 614, this Court has held that a Collective Bargaining Agent is not entitled to maintain a Constitutional petition in respect of any grievance of its members. Similarly a member or office-bearer of a trade union cannot maintain a Constitutional petition for any grievance of the trade union. Therefore, this Constitutional Petition is not maintainable and the same is consequently dismissed in limine. Listed applications are also disposed of. The above are the reasons of our short order announced in open Court on 11-11-2010. H.B.T./M-193/K Petition dismissed.