1995 PLP 492 (PLC)

Faiz Ghanghro for Respondent No.

2. Date of hearing: 30th October, 1994. The petitioners have challenged the Order dated 26‑3‑1994 passed by respondent No. 1, Registrar of Trade Union, wherein, it has been held that the respondent No. 2, Apex Printry Workers' Union, is a legally constituted body in accordance with section 7(1)(d) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, hereinafter called the Ordinance, and since it enjoys more than 1/3 paid membership of the total employees in the establishment of the petitioners it is entitled to the issuance of Collective Bargaining Agent Certificate. The facts relevant for decision of this petition are as follows:‑‑ The petitioners are a registered company and are carrying on business, including that of printing and they are leading printers of security documents/instruments for the Banks in Pakistan. The petitioners were also doing the printing work for the Newspapers, which, now, they have discontinued. It is alleged that due to present economic conditions and emergence of new technology, the petitioners issued notices to many of their employees, informing them that after one month their services would stand terminated. Thereafter, according to the petitioners, the workers' formed a Union and got it registered as Apex Printry Workers' Union and also applied for the Collective Bargaining Agent Certificate. The petitioners filed an Application No. 1 of 1993, under section 34 of the Ordinance, before the First Sindh Labour Court, Karachi, whereby the respondent No. 1 was restrained from issuing Collective Bargaining Agent Certificate, but subsequently said order was withdrawn. The respondent No. 2 filed a petition for unfair labour practices against the petitioners before the National Industrial Relations Commission, wherein it was alleged that the services of the workers were being terminated due to the formation of Trade Union. The Commission initially granted restraint order, but subsequently withdrew it. Thereafter, the petitioners terminated the services of 34 workers and requested the respondent No. 1 not to issue Collective Bargaining Agent Certificate to the respondent No. 2, as the latter did not have 1/3 of the employees as its Members. Besides, the respondent No. 1 was also requested to initiate the proceedings, under section 10 of the Ordinance, for cancellation of registration of the respondent No.

2. The respondent No. 1 vide Order, dated 23rd November, 1993, first refused to issue Collective Bargaining Agent Certificate to the respondent No.2 but later on, after entertaining another application from respondent No. 2, had passed the impugned order. According to the petitioners, before passing the impugned order an enquiry report was prepared by Joint Director of the Labour Department, who was neither competent nor empowered under the law to conduct such enquiry. The petitioners, therefore, have claimed that the impugned order be quashed and the respondent No. 1 be directed to initiate proceedings, under section 10 of the Ordinance, against the respondent No.

2. The case of the respondent No. 2, in brief, as disclosed in Counter Affidavit of Irfan Ali, President of the respondent No. 2 Union, is that the petitioners themselves on 22‑12‑1993 submitted a list of 81 employees before the respondents Nos. 1 and 6 of those employees who were non‑workmen. According to this respondent, at the relevant time, there were 75 workers in the employment of the petitioners and 54 of them were the members of the respondent No.

2. It is alleged that the petitioners illegally retrenched 24 workers of the respondents Nos. 2 and 17 of them have challenged their retrenchment before the Labour Court. It is the case of respondent No. 2 that respondent No. 1 found, after thorough enquiry, that even if the case of 24 retrenched workers was excluded, yet, the Union enjoyed the total membership of 30 workers out of 75 employed by the petitioners, whereas 1/3 requirement came to only

25. Section 22(1) of the Ordinance which speaks about Collective Bargaining Agent is as follows:‑‑ "Collective Bargaining Agent.‑‑‑(1) Where there is only one registered trade union in an establishment or a group of establishments, that trade union shall, if it has as its members not less than one‑third of the total number of workmen employed in such establishment or group of establishments (upon an application made in‑this behalf be certified by the Registrar in the prescribed manner) to be collective bargaining agent for such establishment or group." Mr. M.L. Shani, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned order is liable to be set aside, as at the relevant time, the respondent No. 2 had as its members less than 1/3 of workers employed in the establishment of the petitioners. Mr. Faiz Ghanghro, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, disputed above assertion and referred to the report of Joint Director, Labour, which is available on record. According to his report at the relevant time the respondent No. 2 had the strength of 30 workers, which was more than 1/3 of the total strength by

5. Therefore, ex facie, the impugned order is according to law and no exception can be taken to it. Mr. M.L. Shani, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the number of workers shown in the report of Joint Director is‑incorrect and said report shall not be taken into consideration. In this petition, no law point is involved and the real debate is about facts, which are disputed and cannot be investigated while exercising writ jurisdiction. Although in the petition a ground has been taken. that respondent No. 1 could not depute Joint Director to conduct enquiry about the status of the workers, but no law in support of this contention was cited. On 30th October, 1994 after hearing the arguments this petition was dismissed in limine and these are the reasons for the same. H.B.T./A‑1548/K Petition dismissed.