1976 PLP 514 (PLC)

This is an appeal against an interim award dated 3-2-1976 of Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore.

2. Mahboob Elahi & Sons Employees' Union, Gujranwala, respondent raised an industrial dispute against M/S Mahboob Elahi & Sons Ltd., Gujranwala, appellant 1-ly way of a petition under section 32(1-A) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The respondent not only contested the petition on merits but also raised three preliminary objections namely: (1) that the respondent's Union was not Collective Bargaining Agent and therefore was not competent to raise the industrial dispute. (2) That the conciliation period was extended by the consent of the parties and not by the consent of both the parties as required by law. (3) That the strike notice was beyond the limit as prescribed under section 26(3) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The learned Labour Court summarily overruled these objections and adjourned the case for evidence on merits.

3. Aggrieved by the above interim award the appellant has preferred this appeal.

4. In appeal the appellant reiterated the objections, which were raised before the learned Labour Court. Legal Objection No. l.-Demand notice issued on0 dated 14-3-1975 and was received on 17-3-1975 as it was despatched on 15-3-1975. The strike notice was issued on 31-3-1975 and was received on 2-4-1975. The point for determination is as to whether the respondent-Union was Collective Bargaining Agent at the time when the industrial dispute was raised. According to the evidence of Muhammad Sarwar Senior Clerk/Record Keeper of the Office of the Registrar, Trade union, Lahore Region, Lahore, the respondent-Union applied for a certificate of Collective Bargaining Agent on 5-6-1975 and the said certificate was issued on 17-7-1975. From tile above it is clear that when the industrial dispute was raised the respondent Union was not Collective Bargaining Agent.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that since the respondent-Union was the only Union in the establishment and had also been recognised as such by the appellant, it would be deemed to be Collective Bargaining Agent.

6. In this connection it will be feasible to reproduce section 22(1) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 which reads as follows:- "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."

7. Thus it is clear that it is the only Registrar who can certify a Trade Union as Collective Bargaining Agent. It will also be relevant to reproduce section 52 of the Ordinance, which reads as follows:- "Any act or function which is by this Ordinance required to be performed by or has been conferred upon a 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 employer or employers."

8. From the above it is clear that if a Union has applied to the Registrar for certification as Collective Bargaining Agent it can start perform ing all the functions of Collective Bargaining Agent until the certificate is issued.

9. According to the facts ors the record as already mentioned above, the respondent-Union had applied for a certificate of Collective Bargaining Agent on 5-6-1975 and the certificate was issued on 17-7-1975, therefore, at the time when the industrial dispute was raised the respondent-Union was neither the Collective Bargaining Agent nor it had applied for certification t5 as Collective Bargaining Agent. Under the circumstances the Union cannot derive any benefits from section 52 of the Ordinance. According to section 43 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 no industrial dispute shall be deemed to exist unless a Collective Bargaining Agent or an employer has raised it in the prescribed manner. Since the respondent-Union was not Collective Bargaining Agent at the time when it had raised the industrial dispute, could neither be treated as Collective Bargaining Agent nor it was competent to raise any industrial dispute. I am fortified in this view by the judgment of Sin3 Labour Appellate Tribunal in the case, Awalin Silk Mills Workers' Union v. Their Management, S. I. T. E. (1976 P L C 222) 1 accordingly, uphold this objection. In view of the above it will not be necessary to go into the other legal objections.

10. In the result I accept the appeal, set aside the interim award of the learned Labour Court and dismiss the petition under section 32(1-A) of the Ordinance filed by the respondent-Union.