1992 PLP 1289 (PLC(CS))

MAMOON KAZI, J.

The petitioner is a trade union, registered in' accordance with the provisions of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 in the name and style of Pakistan Seamen's Union. Being the only trade union representing the employees of the respondents Nos. 4 to 23, it was certified as Collective Bargaining Agent under section 22(1) of the said Ordinance and has been acting as such since 1978: In 1989 respondents Nos. 2 and 3 namely Peoples Ittehad Seamen Union and Peoples Unity of Seamen Union also formed by workmen of the said respondents applied for their registration to the Registrar, Trade Unions, Government of Sindh, respondent No.

1. The petitioner raised objections before the Registrar as the registration of the said unions by the Registrar would have offended against the provisions of clause (b) of subsection (2) to section 7 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. However, respondent No. 1 proceeded to register the said unions and it consequently granted them certificates of registration on 30-5-1989. The petitioner, therefore, being aggrieved by such action of the Registrar has filed the present petition.

2. We have heard Mr. Ainuddin Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. M.L. Shahani, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 and Mr. Ikram Ahmed Ansari, learned counsel who has appeared on behalf of respondent No.13 None has appeared for the other respondents.

3. Mr. Ainuddin Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged the same grounds before us as were urged by the petitioner before respondent No.1, viz., that section 7(2)(b) provides a bar against registration of a union where there are two or more registered trade unions in an establishment or group of establishments or industry with which the trade union is connected, if it has as its members not less than one-fifth of the total number of workmen employed in such establishment or group of establishments or industry, as the case may be. Section 7(2)(b) of the said Ordinance provides as under:-- "(2) Without prejudice to the provisions of subsection (1), a-trade union of workmen shall not be entitled to registration under this Ordinance-- (a) ......................................................................... (b) where there are two or more registered trade unions in the establishment, group of establishments or industry with which the trade union is connected, unless it has as its members not less than one-fifth of the total number of workmen employed in such establishment or group of establishments or industry, as the case may be."

4. No doubt, a plain reading of the above clause (b) indicates that the learned counsel is right. However the uncontroverted position is that originally there was only one Union which is the petitioner, representing the employees of respondents 4 to 23 which had been registered by the Registrar, Trade Unions, respondent No-

1. Consequently when applications were received by the Registrar on behalf of respondents Nos. 2 and 3, the bar provided by clause (b) of subsection (2) of section 7 of the said Ordinance was not applicable to the said respondents because, as can be clearly spelt out from the language of section 7(2)(b), the bar against registration of a trade union would apply only when there are two or more than two registered trade unions already in existence. From the comments filed by respondent No. 1 it can be clearly spelt out that the applications of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were processed by the Registrar, side by side and consequently, the said respondents were registered on the same day i.e. 30-5-1989. No doubt, the effect of registration-of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 by the Registrar clearly is that these unions have been registered by him without determining whether the third union had as it members not less than one-fifth of the total number of workmen employed by the establishments which it now represents but since, as pointed out earlier, at the time when respondents Nos. 2 and 3 made their applications there was only one registered trade union in existence which represented the workmen employed by respondents Nos. 2 to 23.

5. We are, therefore, of the view that under the circumstances of the case, the Registrar was justified in not invoking the provisions of the said section in this case. The petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./P-249/K Petition dismissed.