1976 PLP 168 (PLC)

Nazir Ahmad Naz for Respondent. Date of hearing: 29th December 1975. Rehmania Textile Silk Mills Limited No. 1, appellant, filed an appeal against the award dated 29‑9‑

75. While the appeal was pending the appellant filed a miscellaneous application on 19‑11‑75 praying that since no confidence motion had been passed against Habibullah, General Secretary, Sher Mohammad, President and other office‑bearers of the Rehmania Textile Mills Labour Union, respondent, on 13‑11‑75, Gulzar Ahmad the new General Secretary should be made a party in the proceedings. It was also mentioned that in place of Sher Mohammad one Abdul Sattar had been elected the President of the respondent‑Union. This application was not supported by an affidavit. Respondent‑Union contested the above application by stating that no vote of no‑confidence had been passed against Habibullah and Sher Mohammad, General Secretary and President, respectively, of the said Union. According to the respondent, the respondent‑Union was the Collective Bargaining Agent when the appeal was filed but in a referendum held on 13‑11‑75 during the pendency of the appeal, another Union namely Workers' Union Rehmania Textile Silk Mills Limited No. 1, in the same establishment was elected as Collective Bargaining Agent and Gulzar Ahmad was its General Secretary.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant admitted the above facts. In view of the above the miscellaneous application filed by the appellant on 19‑11‑75 is, accordingly, dismissed.

3. On 17‑12‑75 Gulzar Ahmad the General Secretary of the Workers' Union Rehmania Textile Silk Mills No. 1, declared as Collective Bargaining Agent, has filed an application on behalf of his Union for being impleaded as a respondent.

4. The point which requires determination is as to whether the Union of Gulzar Ahmad has to be substituted in the place of the previous Collective Bargaining Agent or that it has to be impleaded as respondent No. 2, In the case National Steel Mills Limited, Karachi v. National Steel employees' Union (P L J 1973 Tr. C. (Lab.) 93) the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal held that a Collective Bargaining Agent which lost its character as such after the proceeding had been initiated by it, cannot continue the proceedings as Collective Bargaining Agent. It must either withdraw or make an application to the Court to substitute the Collective Bargaining regent declares by the Registrar in its place. From the above it is clear that the new Collective Bargaining Agent has, to be substituted in place of the old Collective Bargaining Agent, because the old Collective Bargaining Agent had no right to represent the workers of that establishment.

5. The learned Representative of the respondent, however contended that prior to 13‑I1‑75 Rehmania Textile Silk Mills Labour Union had the vested right to represent the workers of that establishment in the appeal and therefore the said right could not be taken away. In support of his contention he relied on the judgment of the Industrial Court West Pakistan, in the case Five Representatives of Workmen of Batala Engineering Co. Limited v. Managing Director, Batala Engineering Co. Ltd., Lahore (1970 P L C 506). In the above case Five Representatives of Workmen of Batala Engineering Co. Ltd., Lahore, had raised an Industrial Disputes and after the issuance of Failure Certificate had filed a petition in the Industrial Court under section 6 (8) of the Industrial Disputes Ordnance, 1968, for adjudication and determination of the demands mentioned therein. After the said petition had been filed the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968 had been repealed and in its place Indusirial Relations Ordinance, 1969 had come into force. The respondent in the above case had raised a preliminary objec tion that in view of the provisions of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 which had repealed the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968, the petition could not proceed as the right of Five Representatives of Workmen had been taken away by the new law expressly and by necessary intendment. It was also contended that with the repeal of 1968 Ordinance all the pending actions had to stop at the stage where they stood at the time of repeal, unless they were saved by the clause contained in section 67 (2) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. It was held that before the Ordinance of 1969 bad come into force, the Five Representatives of the Workmen had a vested right to bring the dispute to the Court and that right could not be taken away unless it was expressly mentioned in the Ordinance of 1969. In the present case the facts are quite different. The right of Rehmania Textile Silk Mills Labour Union to raise the Industrial Dispute had not been taken away by any subsequent legislation but only due to referendum held on 13‑11‑75 the said Union had lost its character as Collective Baragaining Agent and therefore it had no right to represent the labourers of that establishment. It is the other Union namely, Rehmania Textile Silk Mills Workers' Union, which has been declared as B Collective Bargaining Agent, alone has the right to represent the wor kers, if not the industrial dispute shall deem not to exist in view of the provisions of section 43 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.

6. In the result I substitute Rehmania Textile Silk Mills Workers' Union as respondent in place of Rehmania Textile Silk Mills Labour Union.