1999 PLP 374 (PLC)

"Provided further that after the receipt of a reference for determination of a collective bargaining unit, the Commission may stop or prohibit the proceedings to determine collective bargaining agent under section 22 for any establishment or group of establishments which is likely to be affected by a decision under this section. "

5. The main case has been filed by a Trade Union of Workers and no reference has been made by the Federal Government, In this admitted position the above‑quoted statutory provision does not permit this Commission to stop or prohibit the proceedings for the determination of CBA under section 22 of IRO. The decision of the Hon'ble Karachi High Court (supra) is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present situation. In para.8 of the said reported decision it has been held:‑‑ "On mere reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that the jurisdiction of the N.I.R.C. with regard to stopping or prohibiting the proceedings under section 22‑EE is limited and can be exercised only on receipt of a reference to be made by the Federal Government under section 22‑EE(1). "

6. In para. 10 of the decision (supra) it is further held:‑‑ "We are, therefore, of the firmed opinion that the power thus conferred to N.I.R.C. cannot be exercised to grant stay in proceedings commenced on an application filed by the petitioner." 7 The facts of the reported case were also identical. An application for the case under section 22‑EE was filed and this Commission refused to grant the stay and dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the order the petitioner union filed writ petition in Hon'ble Karachi High Court which was also dismissed in the decision (supra) referred to above. The said judgment is still holding the field and no contrary decision by any Hon'ble superior Court has been referred by the counsel for the petitioner Union.

8. The learned counsel for the respondent No.30 Union also invited my attention towards an earlier decision of the Commission passed in case of Punjab Urban Transport Corporation Labour Union, Rawalpindi v. Registrar of Trade Unions, Punjab Region and another (1981 PLC 7). In this decision an unreported decision of the Division Bench of this Commission has been relied upon. In para.6 of the decision it has been held:‑‑ "The proviso made below clause (c) of section 22‑EE(1) is absolutely clear and leaves no doubt that the proceedings to determine CBA could be stopped or prohibited only after the receipt of a reference for the determination of CBU."

9. Further in para.7 of the decision an order for the vacation of said order was passed in the following manner:‑‑ "I do not agree with the view that a 'reference' and the 'application' were one and the same thing as in that case there was no necessity of adding 'after the receipt of a reference for determination of the CBU'. Since this provision is not applicable in respect of an application made in this behalf by a Trade Union or a Federation of such Unions. I vacate the stay order issued on 8‑9‑1980."

10. I have been left with no alternative but to vacate the stay order dated 3‑2‑1999 in the light of clear statutory provisions referred to above as well as the abovementioned reported judgments. In addition to the said legal position there is another aspect of the case that the learned counsel for the respondent No.30 Union submitted that the legal maxim viz.: "Expressio unius est exclusio alterius (The mention of one is exclusion of another), is also attracted in the instant situation. As the statutory provisions empowered this Commission to stop or prohibit referendum proceedings in case, of receipt of a reference from the Federal Government, therefore, in the light of aforementioned maxim the power to grant stay in all other cases is totally excluded. Reliance in this behalf may also be made upon Division Bench decision of Hon'ble Lahore High Court (1981 PLC 219). From this aspect of the case the prohibitory order dated 3‑2‑1999 is also liable to be vacated being without jurisdiction.

11. For the reasons given above, I recall the interim injunction order dated 3‑2‑1999 and dismiss the Application No.7(38)99‑L filed by the petitioner Union. I proceed further to deal with the main case under section 22‑EE of IRO in accordance with the provisions made in the said section for which the main case has already been fixed for 13‑5‑1999. H.B.T./342/NIRC Petition dismissed.