1987 PLP 730 (PLC)

Reliance has been placed on the following documents by the petitioner. The first document is Exhibit A.W.9/1. This is a letter written by Director General to the Joint Secretary, Finance Division, Regulation Wing, Islamabad. Relevant part of this letter is reproduced: "Kindly refer to the correspondence resting with your D.O. letter No.F.6(1) R.13/81-D-102/82 dated 21‑8‑1982 regarding increase in the rate of Hill Allowance admissible at Quetta (to bring it at par with Murree). (2) In order to lend perspective to the case may I recapitulate the background of the above mentioned demand of the Union (which is collective bargaining agent of the department)......... .. (5) Local Compensatory Allowance was discontinued in 1983. The basis of grant of other two allowances is altogether different. Quetta being a city of national importance Federal Government employees at this station are entitled to the above mentioned allowance which have no relevance with extremity of weather or Hill Allowance. As we have to negotiate with C.B.A. on the basis of simple and cold logic there should be valid ground to defend the decision in Works Council meetings with the C.B.A............................................... ... A perusal of this letter would show that the Director General has recognized the petitioner union as a C.B.A. This document has not been denied by the respondents.

4. The second document relied on by the petitioner union is Exhibit R.W.1/1 which was enclosed by the petitioner union as the Annexure‑A. This document is a copy of the minutes of the meeting, which was held on 4th July, 1979. This meeting, took place between the management and unions of three Collective Bargaining Units. The Unit of Post Office was represented by the petitioner union. Rao Muhammad Younus Khan, Arshad Javed and Faqeer Hussain, respectively, President, Secretary General and Deputy Secretary General of the petitioner union, with 70 representatives of the union. The other collective bargaining unit: Postal Life Insurance was represented by S. Abbas Hussain, General Secretary and the third collective bargaining unit of R.M.S. was represented' by Sher Afzal, Counsellor. R.M.S. Workers Union. An extract of the‑minutes of the meeting is reproduced as under:‑ "After comprehensive discussion on the financial demands submitted by the Union, it was agreed by the Director‑General that an interim increase of about Rs.50 per month in the emoluments of all those drawing a salary of Rs.1000 or less should be granted. The Director‑General further agreed to secure a decision on this issue within two days from the Government, otherwise the Union would be free to take whatever action it deemed necessary in its interest. The above mentioned meeting took place on 4th July, 1979 and the management side was represented by the Director General Pakistan Post Offices alongwith other top ranking officers. The minutes of the meeting have been signed by Rao Muhammad Younus Khan, President, Arshad Javed, Secretary General and Faqeer Hussain, Deputy Secretary General all belonging to NOPE. On behalf of the management this document has been signed by Naseeruddin A. Sheikh, Deputy Director General and M.A. Salam, Assistant Deputy Director General (SNE‑cum Welfare Officer). A perusal of this document would show that the Director General had agreed that an interim increase of Rs.50 per month would be made in the emoluments of all those who were drawing salary of rupees one thousand or less. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner union that this document is a clear proof that they negotiated with the petitioner as a sole bargaining agent on behalf of all the workers employed in the C.B.U. of the Post Offices. This document has been admitted by the respondents but it was contended that this agreement was not a settlement as per definition of the settlement under the I. R.0. , 1969. On behalf of the petitioner union it was contended that for all intents and purposes that was an agreement on financial demands raised by the union and was arrived at between the parties otherwise than in conciliation proceedings and hence the said agreement is covered within the definition of settlement as given under section 2(xxiv) of the Ordinance. Even if this agreement is not covered under the said section 2(xxiv), it proves beyond any shadow of doubt that the management recognized the petitioner union for the purpose of collective bargaining to the exclusion of other trade unions operating in the Post Offices' C.B.U. Agreeing with the contention of the petitioner union I hold that it was an agreement as defined a/s 2(xxiv) of the Ordinance and, that the management singled out the petitioner union for negotiating a settlement to the exclusion of other unions operating in the C . B. U. of Post Offices. This is a clear proof that the management, recognized NOPE as a collective bargaining agent.

5. The next document relied upon by the petitioner union is Exhibit RW.1/5 which was annexure‑B to the petition. This document is a certificate issued by one Dildar Muhammad Khan, Assistant Director, to the petitioner union, which is reproduced as under: "It is certified that National Organization of Postal Employees exists in all circles of Post Office Department and stands recognized by the department which has been registered by the NIRC under section 52 of the I.R.O., 1969." It has been admitted by S.A. Salam, respondent witness No.1 that Dildar Muhammad Khan was assigned the duties of dealing with the union affairs. M. A. Salam in order to discredit this document stated that he consulted the office record and found that no file was opened by the department in this regard and that there was no application from the petitioner union for obtaining such a certificate. It was also stated that Dildar Muhammad Khan, Assistant Director was neither an employer nor Head of the Department and as such he was not authorised to issue such a certificate. In cross‑examination the witness M.A. Salam, admitted that in 1985 Dildar Muhammad Khan, Assistant Director, was dealing with the affairs of the union on behalf of the department. The witness also admitted that this document bore the signatures of Dilawar Muhammad Khan.

6. The witness Dilawar Muhammad Khan when confronted with this document stated that he had not issued this letter after getting prior approval from higher authorities. In other words he admitted to have issued the certificate but stated that it was issued without obtaining approval of the higher authorities. In cross‑examination he admitted that at the time when he issued the certificate he was Assistant Director and was responsible for dealing with the affairs of the union. He also admitted it to be correct that he issued this certificate in the discharge of his official duties. He, however volunteered to state that it was an unofficial letter. In reply to a question from the learned counsel for the petitioner union he stated that the higher authorities did not take any disciplinary action against him when he came to know that he had issued such a certificate. He, however, stated that a verbal warning was given to him. He admitted that he was Gazetted Officer in Grade‑

16. The witness went on to state that this letter was taken by Arshad Javed in good faith. He also admitted that he had not issued such a letter to any other union. In cross‑examination, he came out with an entire different version and in reply to a question stated that he only wrote the following lines in the certificate: "It is certified that (NOPE) Pakistan exists in all circles of the Post Office Department" He added that after writing these words he signed and put his stamp and gave this letter to Arshad Javed, who added the following words: "and stand: recognized by the department which has been registered by the NIRC under section 52 of the IRO 1969." I do not believe the story. In the first instance this had already come to the knowledge of the respondent at least when a copy of the petition was supplied for submitting parawise comments if not before In reply to para.1 of the parawise comments, the only plea taken by the respondent is that "as for annexure‑B to the petition of nowhere indicates that the petitioner has ever been recognized as CBA". The stand now taken by witness Dildar Muhammad Khan was not in the pleadings of the respondent. The respondent witness No.1 M. A. Salam, Deputy Director, Personnel, has not uttered a single word about it. Even Dildar Muhammad Khan himself did not make such an allegation in his cross‑examination‑in‑chief. At the time of the filing of the parawise comments it was also not the case of the respondent that this certificate was issued without obtaining approval of the higher authority. I, therefore, disbelieve the statement of Dildar Muhammad Khan that Arshad Javed manipulated this document by adding some lines in the certificate. A perusal of the certificate would show that all the four lines written in this document are by the same typewriter. If only two lines i.e. "It is certified that National Organization of Postal Employees (NOPE) exists in all circles of Post Office Department", were the only words written by Assistant Director there should have been a full stop at the end of the word "department". Moreover, such a certificate that the petitioner exists in all the circles of the Post Office Department was not a Certificate to be issued by the Assistant Director because it would have been a meaningless certificate. Such a certificate can only be issued by Registrar, Trade Unions, and not by Assistant Director, I, therefore, hold that the certificate Exhibit R.W.1/5 was issued by Dildar Muhammad Khan, Assistant Director and conclusively shows that the respondents have recognized the petitioner union as a collective bargaining agent under section 52 of IRO 1969. The other document relied upon by the petitioner union is Exhibit R.W.1/4 which was enclosed as annexure C to the petition. This is a letter written by the Assistant Director to the petitioner union in which Chief Organiser of the petitioner union was asked to supply a list of workers to show if there was any consensus of all the other unions existing in the Post Office Department regarding the nomination of representatives of the works council. It also goes to show that the Post Office Department entered into correspondence with the petitioner union regarding the constitution of the Works Council.

7. On the other hand the respondents have relied on an order of the then learned Chairman of the NIRC, namely, Mr. Justice Ataullah Sajjad, which does not help the case of the respondent. The other document relied on by the respondent is Exhibit R.W. 1/3 which is minutes of meeting held on 13th July, 1979 between the Director General Post Office and the unions. The minutes of the meeting show that the strike was conducted by all the unions and as such Director General after calling the representatives of all the unions of all the CBUs made an appeal to them to call off the strike, and contains a gist of a speech delivered by the Director General to the representa tives of the Unions. The minutes of meeting cannot be deemed to be an agreement by any stretch of imagination. The next document attached is Exhibit RW.1/3, an order of the then learned Chairman of the Commission, wherein permission was sought for the withdrawal of the proceedings on the ground that the strike was called off by all the unions.

8. From the discussion of the above evidence it would be seen that the petitioner union has been able to prove that it has been recognized by the respondents as a CBA for the CBU of 'Post Offices'. It has also come in evidence that no other union was recognized by the respondent and hence it was not found necessary to implead other unions as a party in the case. The intention of legislature for inserting section 52 of the IRO 1969 was not to leave any vacuum in the field of collective bargaining till a collective bargaining agent has been elected in the secret ballot under section 22(2) of the IRO 1969. I am informed that referendum proceedings are already under H process to elect a collective bargaining agent in the "Post Offices" Unit. Registrar, Trade Unions, NIRC, is requested to expedite the holding of the secret ballot and till then the petitioner union is allowed to act as CBA under section 52 of the IRO 1969 and nominate the representatives on the Works Council.

9. The other prayer of the petitioner is that it may be allowed to exercise the right of collecting union subscription through check off system under section 23 of IRO 1969, the facility of the check of system is available to a collective bargaining agent which as defined under section 2(v) means "a trade union which has been certified as such under section 22 of the IRO 1969." Section 52 lays down that only an act or function which is required to be performed by collective bargaining agent, may until a collective bargaining agent has been certified under the provisions of this Ordinance, be performed by a registered trade union which has been recognised by the employee or employers. Realisation of union fees is a right which has bestowed upon the collective bargaining agent. An act or function is different from a right. Since the petitioner union has attained a status of collective bargaining agent under section 52 and is not yet certified as such, under section 22 of the IRO, 1969, I 'am not inclined to accept the said prayer. A.E./117/N.I.C. Order accordingly.