1977 PLP 20 (PLC)

S. RAIS AHMAD JAFRI (MEMBER).-This is an application under sec tion 22 (1) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 by Spencer's Employees' Union (hereinafter called the applicant-Union for obtaining Collective Bargaining Agent certificate in respect of all the workers employed by the Spencers & Co. (Pakistan) Ltd. (hereinafter called the employer) their all the branches or the establishments. There are 3 Unions operating in the Organi zation: - (1) A Union registered with the Registrar, Trade Unions, Sind, Karachi (hereinafter called the Karachi Union). (2) A registered Union at Sukkur registered with Registrar, Trade Unions. Sind. (3) The applicant-Union. The applicant-Union is an industry-wise Union, which was registered in 1973 with the National Industrial Relations Commission (hereinafter called the Commission) while the Karachi Union was registered in 1953. The Sukkur Union was registered on 13-8-1975 and was declared Collective Bargaining Agent on 21-6-1976. The Karachi Union is also certified as a Collective Bargaining Agent. There is yet another Union at Lahore but it is reported to have gone out of its existence. Other facts are that the Karachi Union through chuck off system is realising subscription from 108 Members out of a total strength of 109 workers, The applicant-Union however, claims to have 2 or 3 workers as its members in the establishment, of the Employer at Sukkur. The employer has 15 Branches scattered all over the country. The point for determination is whether the applicant-Union can be certified as Collective Bargaining Agent for all the workers employed in the establishments of the Employer including the establish ments are Karachi and Sukkur despite the fact that two local Unions not only have been registered but have also been declared as Collective Bargaining Agents for their workers by the Provincial Registrars of Trade Unions. Arguments were advanced by all the parties in the case. The views of the employer, the Sukkur Union and the Karachi Union are that tire applicant-Union cannot be certified as Collective Bargaining Agent for the entire establishments of the Employer. According to them, the applicant-Union could be certified as Collective Bargaining Agent in all the establishments of the Employer excluding Karachi and Sukkur Establishments. I also hold the same view but since one of the Members of the Commission in a certain case had expressed a contrary view, deemed it proper to refer the legal issue to the learned Chairman of the Commission who was pleased to constitute a Full Bench of the Commission for its determination. I still stick to my view. The reasons for this are as under: - (i) The meaning and spirit of section 22 (1) and of section 22 (2) of the Ordinance is clear and unambiguous ; (ii) The intention of legislation, that there should be one Collective Bargaining Agent in an establishment or group of establishments, is clearly borne out from the language that has been used and no other interpretation is possible on this point. It would be, therefore not proper to hold that applicant-Union which is an industry-wise Union can also be declared a Collective Bargaining Agent alongwith two other Collective Bargaining Agents at Karachi and Sukkur. It would defeat the very purpose for which the Industrial Relations Ordinance was enacted after repealing the Wet Pakistan Industrial Dispute Ordinance, 1968, West Pakistan Trade Unions Ordinance, 1968, the East Pakistan trade Unions Act, 1965, and the East Pakistan Labour Dispute Act. 1965. It may be mentioned that the West Pakistan Industrial Dispute Ordinance, 1968 had repealed the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1959 while the West Pakistan Trade Unions Ordinance, 1968 had repealed the Trade Unions Act, 1926. Under the repealed Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1959 and the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinances 1968 there was no embargo on the number of registered Trade Unions which could raise an industrial dispute. Even an unregistered Trade Union with 5 selected representatives could serve a strike notice. This scheme of the repealed law was completely overhauled by the industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and for the first time a system of Collective Bargaining Agent was introduced. In support of my view I would like to quote an extract from the labour policy of the Government of Pakistan announced by Air Martial Noor Khan, Member, Council of Administration on 5th July 1969.-- "(a) the concept of the recognition of the Union by an employer before it can bargain on behalf of the workers will be removed, (b) where only one Union exists in an establishment, it will be regarded as the bargaining agent on behalf of all the workers in that establishments, (c) wherever more than one Union exists in an establishment, the bargaining agent will be that Union which enjoys the widest support as determined through secret ballot among all workers or that establishment. The bargaining agent once determined will continue to be treated as the workers' sole representative for a minimum period of one year and thereafter till it is challenged." This policy was reflected in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 which came into force on November 3, 1969. There are many favourable decisions of different Courts on this point holding that the Law envisages only one Collective Bargaining Agent in an establishment or group of establishments, but I have yet to come across a decision in which a contrary view has been expressed. It may also be mentioned that the applicant-Union has no membership at all in the Karachi Establishment and as such this Union has no right to be declared as a collective Bargaining agent at least for the Karachi establishment. Now if the applicant-Union is declared as Collective Bargaining Agent for all the establishments including Karachi Establishment there would be two Collective Bargaining Agents for the Karachi Workers viz: (i) The Karachi Union, which was declared as Collective Bargaining Agent by the Provincial Registrar. (ii) Applicant-Union by the Commissioner. It would result in a legal absurdity; as for the same set of Workers there would be raised different demands by different Unions. Then again there would be a dispute as to which Collective Bargaining Agent would exercise the powers of nominating members of the Works' Council, shop steward and performing other functions including the functions of representing the workers before Conciliator, and Labour Courts etc. If the applicant-Union is declared a collective bargaining agent it may induct Confusion in the administration of the Law, which would undermine the Industrial Relations system in every large establishment instead of regulating it. There could be other repurcussions. Take an example where a Union in a local referendum is defeated. This defeated Union with the help of some members employed in another Province manages to form an industry wise Trade Union. Should this Union which has lost in the local refrendum be declared a Collective Bargaining Agent simply because it has attained the status of an industry-wise Trade Union. Then again there would be no end to such industry-wise Collective Bargaining Agents. For instance, there is a Union comprising of Karachi and Lahore Workers. This Union would be certified as n Collective Bargaining Agent in spite the fact that the Karachi and Lahore Unions have already been declared as a Collective Bargaining Agents. Then another Union could be formed which would comprise of Karachi, Lahore and Peshawar Workers and on the same reasons, this Union should also be declared as a Collective Bargaining Agent, similarly, there would be another Union comprising of Employees at Karachi and Multan and yet another Union between the Multan and Peshawar and so on. All of them would be industry-wise Trade Unions and as against the local Collective Bargaining Agents every Union would also be exercising the right of Collective Bargaining Agent. This is definitely not the intention of legisla tion. I could quote similar examples in relation to Federations where its members even after having lost in secret ballots, could be declared Collective Bargaining Agent if the contention of the applicant-Union is accepted. During the course of arguments the term 'establishment' and 'group of establishments' also came under discussion. The counsel for the applicant Union was of the view that establishment means one whole establishment and its different branches and offices etc. are not establishments within the meaning of section 2 (ix) of the Ordinance. In other worth Messrs Spencer & Company (Pakistan) Limited, as a whole, is an establishment and its different Branches or Offices located at Karachi, Sukkur and Punjab are not covered within the term "establishment." Assuming that this is the position, let us now analyse the position of the applicant-Union: - "(1) Section 22 (1) states that where there is only one Union in an establishment or group of establishments that Union should be declared as a Collective Bargaining Agent. If Messrs Spencers & Co. (Pakistan) Ltd. are one establishment. Section 22(1) would now read as under: - 'Where there is only one Union in Messrs Spencers & Company that Union would be declared as a Collective Bargaining Agent . . . ' (2) This interpretation of the term "Establishment" does not help the applicant-Union at all because in this way there would be 3 Trade Unions in one establishment and provisions of section 22(l) would not be attracted." It has been argued that if a Union does not pertain to the whole of establishment, it can not validly claim registration. In other words as the Karachi Union has not thrown open its membership to all the workers of the employer it is not a validly registered Union. I do not agree with this view. I would refer the following provisions of the Ordinance, which relate to the registration of a Trade Union in an Establishment: - (i) Definition of Establishment as given is section 2 (ix). (ii) Definition of registered Trade Union as given in section 2 (xxi). (iii) Definition of Trade Union as given in section (xxvi). (iv) Section 5 (Application for registration). (v) Section 6 (Requirements for application). (iv) Section 7 (Requirements for registration). According to the definition of the Trade Union it is a combination of workmen and it need not he scattered throughout the establishment. In other Words even a few workers can form a Trade Union. In the previous laws there was some limitation regarding the number of workers who could form a Trade Union Under the Ordinance there is no limitation on workers for Forming a Trade, Union except as provided under section 7 (2) (b). In Karachi the workers of Spencers & Company (Pakistan) Limited in 1953 felt the need to form a Union. They combined together. This combination of workers as it was formed primarily for the purpose of regulating the wages between the workers and the employer, or for imposing restrictive conditions on the conduct of the Trade and business of Employer and as the Union complied with all the necessary legal formalities, it was registered by the Registrar of Trade Unions. There is no provision in the Ordinance, which indicates that a Union of workers cannot be formed except in the whole of the establishment. However there is only one exception in the case of a collective bargaining unit declared and certified under section 22-EE where it has been laid down that after the certification of a Collective Bargaining Unit no Trade Union shall be registered in respect of that Union except for the whole of such Union. Messrs Spencers & Co. (Pakistan) Ltd.; have not been certified bargaining unit. As best it could be called one establish ment, and in a part of this establishment a Union can be validly formed and registered. That being the case the Trade Unions registered at Karachi and Sukkur are validly registered Trade Unions and the applicant-Union is oho one of the Unions operating in that establishment. In this way there would be 3 Unions in the establishment of the Employer and the provisions of section 22 (1) would not be attracted. The application of the applicant Union would be liable to be rejected on this ground alone. But as already stated above, I do not agree with the view that the entire organisation of the employer is an establishment. I will now refer to the provisions of section 3 of the Ordinance. It lays down that workers, without distinction whatsoever, shall have the right to establish and, subject to the rules of organization concerned, to join associa tions of their own choosing without previous authorization. It also provides that Trade Unions and employers associations shall have the right to draw up their constitutions and rules, to elect their representatives in full freedom, to organise their administration and activities . . . . and to formulate their programmes. A plain reading of this section would show that there is a complete freedom of association and no restriction of any kind has been placed on the workers. In my opinion therefore the workers can form a class-wise, category-wise or craft-wise Trade Unions and they may form Union in an establishment or a group of establishments. They can form general Unions as has been done by the dock-workers and seamen. In one and the same establishment white-collar Labour and blue-collar Labour can form different Unions and can also combine to form one Union. Since there is mushroom growth of Trade Unions, the Government has made certain amendments by introducing section 22-GE and section 7 (2) (b) and other provisions through which the position of non-Collective Bargaining Agent Unions has been weakened, otherwise these amendments were not needed. I would also refer to section 67 (2) (a) which lays down that every Trade Union existing immediately before the commencement of this Ordinance which was registered under any such law shall be deemed to be registered under this Ordinance and its constitution shall continue in force until altered or rescinded. Section 67 (2) (b) reads as under: - "anything done, rules made, notification or order issued, officer appointed, Court constituted, notice given, proceedings commenced or other actions taken shall be deemed to have been done, made, issued, appointed, constituted, given, commenced or taken, as the case my be, under the corresponding provisions of this Ordinance." The Karachi Union known as Spencers & Company (Pakistan) Limited Employees' Union was registered in 1953 much before the I.R.O. came into existence, it was a validly registered Union and would remain a validly regis tered Union. Even its constitution confining its membership to the workers of Karachi would remain in force in accordance with provisions as contained in section 67 (2) (a) of the Ordinance and its registration would remain valid under section 67 (2) (b) of the Ordinance. I am of the view that the term "establishment" as defined in section 2(ix) of the Ordinance does embrace within its scope the branches of a large establishment. For instance each Branch of a Bank can be an establishment. At the same time a Bank as a whole can also be called an establishment. In support of my view I would like to cite the judgment in writ petition No. 599/73 as decided on 30-1-1974 by a Division Bench consisting of their Lordship Tufail Ali A. Rahman, Chief Justice and Fakhruddin G. Eobrahim Justice of Sind & Baluchistan High Court in P L J 1974 Kar. 254 their Lordships have observed as under: - "The Council is clearly in error in the meaning that he seeks to give to the expression "establishment" which is defined in I.R.O. as follows: "establishment means any office, firm, industrial unit, undertaking, shop or premises in which workmen are employed for the purpose of carrying on any manufacturing process, business, trade or service. From its definition it would appear that an employer himself may have more than one Establishment, for example offices in a commer cial area shops in business area, or one or more industrial units in an industrial area and the expression "establishment" would include not whole of the establishment of an employer but each of them individually. Shat an employer may have more than one establish ment for carrying on industry or for the purpose of his industry is clearly envisaged by the provisions contained in the then section 22-A of the I.R.O., reproduced hereunder: Section 22-A. Collective Bargaining Agent for institutions with more than one establishment.-(1) Where an employer carrying on an industry has, for the purpose of that industry more establishments than one, arty registered Trade Union which fulfils such conditions as may be prescribed in this behalf may make an application in such manner and to such authority as may be prescribed for being declared as the Collective Bargaining Agent in relation to all such establishments and, upon such an application, there shall be determined in the prescribed manner a Collective Bargaining Agent for such establishments. (2) Where a Collective Bargaining Agent has been determined under sub section (1) for the establishments referred to therein, the Collective Bargaining Agent determined, if any under section 22 for any one or more of such establishments shall not undertake Collective Bargaining in respect of matters relating to the terms and conditions of employ ment applicable to workmen employed in any of such establishment." Referring to this repealed section their Lordships have held that there could be small establishments within a larger establishment. I may add that at the time when I.R.O. was promulgated, Pakistan had only two Provinces, East Pakistan and West Pakistan. Under the 1962 Constitution labour was a provincial subject as such both the Provinces East Pakistan and West Pakistan had their own different sets of labour laws. The West Pakistan Government had repealed the two Central Acts namely: - (i) Trade Unions Act, 1926; and (ii) Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1969, and had promulgated the "West Pakistan Industrial Dispute Ordinance, 1968" and the "West Pakistan Trade Unions Ordinance, 1968". Similarly the East Pakistan Government had also repealed the above two Central Laws. These four Provincial Labour Laws were repealed by the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1965. Even after the promulgation of the Industrial Relations Ordinances, 1969 the Laws continued to be administered by the two Provinces of East and West Pakistan. The two Provinces were hundreds of miles apart, but nevertheless the branches of all the banks, insurance companies etc., were scattered throughout the two Provinces. Each Province registered the Unions to the establishments of Banks etc. throng a Registrar Trade Unions. Each Province had Provincial Conciliators arid Provincial Labour Courts. Even in its Pakistan International Airlines Corporation two separate secret ballot were held one in East Pakistan and the other in West Pakistan. Separate Unions of large establishments were registered in tyro Provinces. It was practically impossible to form one Trade Union in all the branches of the Bank and to run it successfully. In fact there was no central machinery at the time when the I.R.O. was promulgated. There was no provision for establishing an Organisation like the Commission. Unions were being registered by Provincial Registrars. This being the factual position, how can it be admitted that the Law would define the term "Establishment" in such a way that small branches, sub-officer, shops and premises of a large Establishment like Bank, Railway etc., would be excluded from its purview. A reference is also invited to the repealed section 32-A, which lays down as under,-- "Section 32-A.-Industrial Disputes involving more than one establish ments . . . . Where an industrial dispute relates to or involves an industrial organisation that has more than one establishments, then . . . (a) Where the subject-matter of the dispute extends to more than one establishment situated in a Province while the headquarters office of the industrial organisation is another Province, the negotiations pro vided by section 26 shall be conducted at a place in that Province to be nominated by the Provincial Government and the conciliation having jurisdiction at such place under section 27 shall have jurisdiction to act further in the matter in respect of all such establishments. In any consequential proceedings under section 31, the arbitrator may be appointed, in respect of the dispute as affecting all the establishments from the panel maintained by the Provincial Government or may be any other person; (b) Where the subject-matter of the dispute "tends to places in more than one Province, the negotiations provided by section 26 shall be conducted at the place were the headquarters office of the industrial organisation having establishments in such Provinces is situated, and the Conciliator having jurisdiction at such place under section 27 shall have jurisdiction to act further in the matter. In case no settlement is reached, the parties shall have power to appoint an arbitrator under section 31, who may be a person whose name is borne on the panel maintained by one of the Provincial Governments involved, or any other person." A perusal of section 32-A would leave no doubt in the mind that the term "establishment" cannot be construed so as the exclude the branches from its scope. It has been contended that the proviso added to subsection (2) of section 22 leads support to the meaning purported to be assigned to the term `establishment', The proviso reads as under: - "Provided that the Registrar may, in the case of a large establishment having its branches in more than one town, hold the secret ballot within 30 days from the making of the application." The word "Branches" has been used in relations to a secret ballot. There are some large establishments in which the workers of their own free will have not formed Unions in its smaller establishments. For instance in Pakistan International Airlines the workers have formed only industry-wise Trade Unions. P.I.A. (sic) therefore, for the purposes of holding a secret ballot in one establishment. Here the workers have not formed their Unions in the smaller establishments. If such a secret ballot is to be held where only industry-wise Unions are taking part the appropriate word used for such a purpose would be "Branches" and not "Establishments", otherwise it would have created confusion. I would, therefore, hold that each Branch of the employer is an establishment in which there are 3 Unions. The employer besides the Head Office at Karachi got the following other Branches: - 1. Hyderabad. 2. Quetta. 3. Bahawalpur. 4. Multan. 5. Lyallpur. 6. Sargodha. 7. Lahore. 8. Gujranwala. 9. Jhelum. 10. Rawalpindi. 11. Peshawar. 12. Mardan, and 13. Bennu. There are the 13 establishments of the employer. Apart from these they are two other establishments one at Sukkur and the other at Karachi Head Office. In this way there are 15 establishments of the employer. The workers of Karachi have formed a Union in Karachi Establishment, 2 or 3 of the workers at Sukkur and the workers of the rest of the 13 branches of Lahore, Quetta, Hyderabad, etc. have combined together to form one Union which is the applicant-Union. The workers at Sukkur Branch have also formed their own Union. In this way there are 3 groups of establishments, Karachi, Sukkur and the rest of Pakistan. The applicant-Union, therefore, has to show that there exists no Union in the three groups of establishments in which it claims to become Collective Bargaining Agent. But since the applicant-Union has no membership in Karachi and since there are two Unions one at Karachi Establishment and the other at Sukkur Establishment its claim for being declared and certified as a Collective Bargaining Agent for all the establishments including Karachi and Sukkur is not maintainable. The applicant-Union, however, may be entitled for declaration and certification as Collective Bargaining Agent in respect of all other establishments of a employer excluding Karachi and Sukkur but this is not the case of the applicant. The application of the Union is, therefore, liable, to be rejected. KAZI MASUD APZAL KHAN (MEMBBR).-The Pakistan Spencers Employees Union, Islamabad, has applied for declaration as C. B. A. for all the branches of Messrs Spencers & Co. Pakistan Limited. This case was heard by the Full Commission on the 17th and 18th August, 1976. The main issue converted on the distinction, if any, drawn by the law in respect to "an establishment" or "group of establishments" in the I. R. O., 1969. 2. The Industrial Relations Ordinance, according to its preamble, releates to the formation of Trade Unions, the regulation of relations between the employers and workmen, and the avoidance and settlement of differences arising between them or matters connected therewith and ancillary thereto. 3. Reading together the definition of the terms "Trade Union", in clause (xxvi) of section 2, I.R.O. and "industrial dispute" in clause (xiii) thereof, the law conceives of a combination of workmen and employers formed primilarly for the purpose of regulating the relations between workmen and employers etc. etc. so as to avoid and settle any dispute or differences between employers and workmen etc, etc. which is concerned with employment or non employment, or the terms of employment, or the conditions of work of any person, excluding, of course, rights guaranteed or secured to him by or under any law, or award or settlement. 4. The Industrial Relations Ordinance further conceives, in section 3 (a) and proviso thereunder, that workmen shall have the right to establish and to join associations of their own choosing, except that no workman shall be entitled to be a member of more than one Trade Union at a time. The Trade Union has the right to draw up its constitution and Rules, to elect its representatives in full freedom, to organise its administration and activities, and to formulate its programmes. In sections 6 and 7, however, certain restraints have been placed on this freedom. Section 6 of the I.R.O. enjoins that every application for registration of a Trade Union should be accompanied by a statement showing, among others: - (1) the name of the Trade Union and the address of its head office; (2) Total paid membership; (3) the name of the establishment, or group of establishments, or the industry, as the case may be, to which the Trade Union relates, alongwith a statement of the total number of workmen employed therein; and the names and addresses of the registered Trade Unions in the establishment, group of establishments or industry, as the case may be, to which the union relates. The very use of the term "as the case may be" in clause (3) above, envisages a co-relationship between the Union and the establishment; and so it does in clause (4) above. 5. According to section 7, a Trade Union shall not be entitled to registration unless, among others, all its members are workmen actually engaged or employed in the industry (business, trade, manufacture, calling, service, employment or occupation) with which the Trade Union is connected. On the other hand, where there are two or more registered Trade Unions: - (i) in the establishment, or with which the (ii) in the group of establishments, or Trade Union is (iii) in the industry connected, a Trade Union shall not be entitled to registration unless it has as its members not less than 1/5th of the total number of workmen employed-- (i) in such establishment, or (ii) in such group of establishments, or as the case may be. (iii) in such industry, 6. In section 2(ix), of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, "establishment" has been defined to mean any (a) office (b) firm (c) industrial unit (d) under taking (e) shop or (f ) premises, in which workmen are employed for the purpose of carrying on any business. trade manufacture, calling, service, employment or occupation. According to a recent amendment, a "Collective Bargaining Unit" in an 'establishment or `group of establishments,' deter mined under section 22-EE has been included within the definition of the term "establishment". It should be obvious that an organization can be either an establishment, or a group of establishments, for the reason that two distinct terms have been used in the law not to describe the same thing. If it were intended that the two terms should connote the same meaning, it would have been so specified, as has been done in regard to the terms 'workmen' and 'workers' in clause (xxxviii) of section 2, or the terms 'industry-wise Trade Union', `federation of such Trade Unions' and 'federations at the national level in "Explanation" under section 12-A. 7. As it stands, an industrial unit or a unit of an office, firm, under taking, shop or premises in which workmen are employed for carrying on any business etc. is an 'establishment', in terms of section 2(ix). Then, if an office or a firm or undertaking or an industrial unit is spread over more than one establishment, such establishments are inherently by their composition a natural associate of the same "establishment" or "group of establishments"; and, by the use of the phrase "as the case may be", each office, firm, industrial unit, undertaking, shop or premises contituting 'the group' shall lose its independent entity. Similarly, the entire collectivity of establishments engaged in the same business, trade, manufacture, calling, service, employment or occupation, have been called the 'industry'. To quote an example, a branch of a bank located in one office or premises is an 'establishment', but the whole of the Bank as such is a "group of establishment", and the collectivity of the banks is the Banking industry. Section 22-EE has further clarified the position, and enunciated the concept of the term 'group of establishments' as belonging to the same employer and the same industry. This has been reflected in clause (ix) of section 2, whereby a Collective Bargaining Unit lass been specifically included in the meaning of 'establishment'. This specific provision abundantly makes it clear that a unit of an establishment is not an 'establishment' in its own right, unless it has been determined as a Collective Bargaining Unit according to section 22-EE. 8. The law thus conceives of

(a) an establishment, (b) a group of establishments, or (c) an industry. This results in the existence of a primary unit of an 'establishment', the secondary unit of 'group of establishments', and finally of an 'industry'; the latter connoting a collectivity of establishments engaged in the same business, trade, manufacture, calling, service, employment, or occupation. In consequence, the workers employed in an "establishment" or in a "group of establishments" or in an "industry", respectively, are entitled to form a union of their own choosing in any such unit, and not a part therof. The term 'as the case may be' in clause (b), 2subsectlon (2) of section 7, used at the end of the sentence, does not give any effects other than of "respective" to each of these entities.

9. Coming to the question of determination of Collective Bargaining Agent, the law recognises, in section 22, I.R.O, the existence of an estab lishment' or a 'group of establishments', but not the 'industry', as a unit entitled to the right of collective bargaining with the employer on behalf of all workmen employed in such unit, irrespective of the fact whether they are members of that union or are not members of any union at all (section 22(12) (a) and (b) read with section 39(2).

10. Further, section 25-A originally permitted a worker in the matter of individual grievances to be represented by an officer of the Trade Union of which he was the member. According to the recent amendment, this privilege has been withdrawn, so that a worker can now be represented only by the Collective Bargaining Agent, and not by his own Union. In fact, the employer is barred from entering into a settlement with any other Trade Union than the Collective Bargaining Agent, and the contravention of this provision is deemed to be an unfair labour practice under section

15. As the law permits of only one C.B.A, for a 'group of establishments', there can be one and only one C.B.A. for such group as a whole, and each 'establishment' which is a component of such 'group of establishments' it then not entitled to have a C.B.A. of its own besides a C.B.A for the whole group of establishments, nor a C.B.A. for the group of establishments excluding such establishment. The simple reason is that in this manner the very purpose of having one C.B.A. in the "group of establishments would be out rightly defeated, and there would be no occasion for determination of units in relation to collective bargaining. The duplicity of C.B.A. is in no way conceived in section 22, which specifically corelates a C.B.A. to 'an establishment' or to a 'group of establishments', according to the nature of the undertaking, and not according to the choice of a Union.

11. In introducing section 22-EE, the general and vital concept of 'group of establishments' has been specified in very definite terms differentiating between establishments belonging to the same employer and the same industry from hetrogeneous combination of establishments belonging to different employers and different industries. Freedom to workmen to design 'an establishment' or 'group of establishments' of their own choosing, and not in relation to the natural association in the inherent constitution of the undertaking, could better be expressed by the plural form of the term estab lishment' and (sic) be no reason in coining the term 'group of establishments' in that context. Thus, a combination of establishments forming a harmonious whole shall fall into a group for the purposes of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, and the term 'group' cannot be assigned its general dictionary meaning when it does not fit into the objectives of the law in the preamble.

12. The theory that the authority given to workers by the. Industrial Relations Ordinance to form unions of their own choice has also' given them, at the same time, the right to carve out of an undertaking or an organisation any number of independent 'establishments', or mass together any number of heterogeneous figures of their own choice to form a 'group', is not logical to any system of industrial relations, which aims at a sustained harmony among workers and their respective employer in matters of terms of employment and conditions of work Any interpretation of the term 'group of establishments' trust conform to the objectives of the preamble.

13. An undertaking is either an 'establishment', or a 'group of estab lishments', by its own nature inherent in its composition or constitution, and this entity is respected throughout the Industrial Relations Ordinance The I.R.O. hag been designed, according to its preamble, for regulation of relations between workmen and employers in an orderly form or arrangement, so that the employer is enabled to negotiate with an identified entity representing all his workmen. Precisely for this very reason, the provisions of section 22-EE have been introduced. A plain reading of section 22-EE, in conjunction with section 22, would show that: - (1) there can be only ONE Collective Bargaining Agent in an undertaking belonging to the same employer and the same industry, whether it be- (a) an establishment, or (b) a group of establishments; and (2) where a single Collective Bargaining Agent be not capable of safeguarding toe interests of the workmen employed:- (a) in an establishment, or (b) group of establishments, there can be determined more than one Collective Bargaining Unit in such establishment or group of establishments.

14. It is significant that where the N.I.R.C. has decided upon determination of more than one Collective Bargaining Unit in an establish ment, or group of establishments, it has to specify the modifications, which, in consequence of its decision, will take effect "in regard to the registration of the Trade Unions and federations of Trade Unions affected by such decision". This provision in section 22-EE (1)(b) irresistably establishes a direct and intimate relationship between the territorial limits of the 'establishment' or the 'group of establishments' and those of the union. Because if so was not the intention of section 6, read with section 7, and reflected in section 22, then section 22-EE would not have provided for matters of "modification in registration", in its clause (b), according to the determination made in respect to Collective Bargaining Units. Thus, in subsection (3) of section 22-EE, it has been significantly provided that -- after certification of a Collective Bargaining Unit, no Trade Union shall be registered in respect of that unit except for the whole of such unit", and that "no certification or proceedings for determination of Collective Bargaining Agent under section 22 shall take place for a part of Collective Bargaining Unit or a group of Collective Bargaining Units". This provision has been reflected in the amendment of the definition of the term "establishment", in clause (ix) of section 2, so that an "establish ment" includes "a Collective Bargaining Unit, if any, constituted under that section (viz. S. 22-EE) in arty establishment or group of establishments". If it be presumed that a branch or a part of an establishment was meant to exercise its own independent status at the choice of the workers, the definition of "establishment" would not have been designed to include the collective bargaining unit, nor a bar placed is section 22-EE (3).

15. To sum up-- (1) an undertaking is either an 'establishment, or a 'group of establishments', by its inherent constitution. (2) A 'group of establishments' is a combination of a number establishments belonging to the same employer and the same industry. (3) Each 'establishment', which is a natural component of a 'group of establishments', has no independent entity or locus standi. (4) In such 'establishment' which is a component of the group of establishments, the relationship of the union is vis-a-vis the 'group', and not the individual 'establishment', so that registration is in relation to the territorial jurisdiction of the 'group'. (5) There can be only one C. B. A. for an 'establishment', or for a 'group of establishments' but if in 'an establishment', or 'group of establishments', a single C.B.A. be not competent to safeguard the interests of all workmen, ten more than one unit be determined having regard to cognate factors, like sameness or similarity of economic activity, in the same industry, or the same employer. If an employer is engaged in more than one industry, his undertakings in different industries cannot be combined to form a single mass for purposes of 'group of establishments' within the meaning of the Industrial Relations Ordinance.

16. In the light of the above discussions, it is to be seen whether the Applicant Union, namely Pakistan Spencers Employees' Union, Rawalpindi, is entitled to be declared or determined as Collective Bargaining Agent for all the establishments of Messrs Spencers & Co, Pakistan Ltd. The applicant Union has not claimed any membership in the Karachi establishment of the Company. It has thus no locus standi to claim that as an "industry wise" Trade Union it represents workers of all the establishments of the Company and so it be declared C.B.A. of the group of establishments of Silencers & Co. Pakistan inclusive of its Karachi establishment, under subsection (i) of section 22 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. It shall be making a farce of the law to confer the authority of collective bargaining under subsection (1) of section 22, on such a union, which has no membership in one of the establishments. Until the provisions of section 22-EE have been invoked by any Union, the Registrar is bound to take cognizance of the existence of registered trade unions for the whole of the establishment. The Applicant Union can, however, claim for determina tion of C.B.A. under subsection (2) of section 22, if it may so desire, in the presence of other unions registered for the establishment.

17. It is held that as such the applicant-Union is not qualified for being declared C. B. A. under section 22(1) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance for all the establishments of Messrs Spencers & Co. Pakistani Limited, in the presence of other unions, more so the Karachi Union, whose constitution stands protected under section 67(2) (a) ibid. ORDER OF THE COURT The order of the full Court acting as Registrar in this case, therefore. Is that the petitioner-Union can be certified as C.B.A. for those branches of the organization known as Messrs Spencers & Co. (Pakistan) Limited in which it has membership. Order accordingly.