1976 PLP 232 (PLC)

A. A. Shareef for Respondent. This is an appeal against an Award of the learned Presiding Officer of Labour Court No. III, Karachi, dated the 14th of May 1974 in an application under section 32 (I-A) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, (herein after called the Ordinance). The learned Court dismissed the application on three-fold grounds, namely, (1) that the Union was not validly formed as it was composed of workmen and non-workmen, (2) that the notice of strike was not served on the Labour Court as required under section 29 of the Ordinance, and (3) that Notice of Strike was served beyond the time required by section 26 of the Ordinance.

2. Collective Bargaining Agent is defined under section 2(v) of the Ordinance. It runs as under: - Collective Bargaining Agent", in relation to an establishment or industry, means the Trade Union of workmen which, under section 22, is the agent of workmen in the establishment or, as the case may be industry in the matter of Collective Bargaining. It would appear from the above definition that the Collective Bargaining Agent has to represent Trade Union of workmen and not those who car be said to be not workmen. In this case the respondent Management had specifically challenged the membership of two persons that they were not workmen within the definition of workmen. It is noteworthy that Mr. Shah, in his Affidavit did not assert that Messrs Amanullah and Mr. Mazharuddin Qureshi were workmen. All he stated was as under- I also deny the correctness of the preliminary legal objections, legal contentions raised therein are misconceived and not tenable in law as per advice received by me from my legal adviser, which is believed to be true and correct. I say that the Union is properly constituted body duly registered by the Registrar of Trade Unions under Registra tion No. 1105, and the respondents have no locus standi to challenge the constitutional ability of the Union and the issuance of the certificate of the Registration is a conclusive evidence of the Union being duly registered under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.

3. Mr. Shareef, the learned Advocate for the respondent, has not challenged the registration of the Union to be invalid. What he has challenged is that the Union cannot be said to be a Collective Bargaining Agent within the meaning of section 2(v) of the Ordinance. Mr. Ansari, Administrative Manager of the respondent-Company, stated that Mr. Amanullah and Mr. Mazharuddin Qureshi are not workmen. Mr. Qureshi was a Supervisor drawing Rs. 800 as monthly emoluments. In fact it is over Rs. 800 and the particulars are given in para 7 of his Affidavit. Mr. Amanullah is at present working as Sales Representatives. He was Regional Manager in East Pakistan. Both, according to Mr. Ansari, were not workmen. It is noteworthy that Mr. Ansari was not cross-examined though adjournments were granted for this object. Mr. Shah was also required to file a copy of the Constitution of the Union but he did not do so. I would hold that Messrs Amanullah and A Mazharuddin Qureshi are not workmen and, therefore, the Union was not entitled to raise the Industrial Dispute within the meaning of section 43 of the Ordinance. Section 43 reads as under: - No Industrial Dispute shall be deemed to exist unless it has been raised in the prescribed manner by a Collective Bargaining agent or an employer. I would hold that the Union cannot be said to be a Collective Bargaining Agent within the meaning of the definition given under section 7(v) of the Ordinance.

4. It is not necessary to consider the other contentions of Mr. Lodhi on the other two points as I have held that the Union is not Collective Bargaining Agent within the meaning of section 2(v) of the Ordinance.