Collective Bargaining Agent

2022 PTD 1384 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S.100CPunjab Industrial Relations Act (XIX of 2010), Ss.24 & 1(3)(h)Collective Bargaining AgentEducational institution'Commercial basis', meaning ofScope

Petitioner/Establishment was aggrieved of registration of private respondent as a Collective Bargaining Agent by the Registrar of Trade Unions

Petitioner was a charitable educational institution which was a registered trust

Major source of income of the petitioner was donations from trustees and surplus of income and funds over expenditures of the trust were solely used for the promotion of purposes and objects specified in the trust deed

No dividend/bonus from surplus funds of the trust could be given to any members of the trust or his relatives

Petitioner (Institution) was also granted an exemption certificate in terms of S.100C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Petitioner was issued a NPO (Non Profitable Organization) certificate by a NPO Certification Agency

Registrar was swayed by the fact that the trust was making profits as also that the infrastructure built in the school had not been developed out of the donations made by the trustees but was being made from the fee charged from the majority of the students

Only question was whether the funds were being expended on a commercial basis and in the absence of any evidence, it was unlawful to conclude that the petitioner trust was being run on commercial basis

Petition was allowed, impugned order as well as certificate of Collective Bargaining Agent were declared to have been issued without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

2022 PLC 180 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss.24 & 1(3)(h)Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), S.100CCollective Bargaining AgentEducational institution'Commercial basis', meaning ofScope

Petitioner/Establishment was aggrieved of registration of private respondent as a Collective Bargaining Agent by the Registrar of Trade Unions

Petitioner was a charitable educational institution which was a registered trust

Major source of income of the petitioner was donations from trustees and surplus of income and funds over expenditures of the trust were solely used for the promotion of purposes and objects specified in the trust deed

No dividend/bonus from surplus funds of the trust could be given to any members of the trust or his relatives

Petitioner (Institution) was also granted an exemption certificate in terms of S. 100C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Petitioner was issued a NPO (Non Profitable Organization) certificate by a NPO Certification Agency

Registrar was swayed by the fact that the trust was making profits as also that the infrastructure built in the school had not been developed out of the donations made by the trustees but was being made from the fee charged from the majority of the students

Only question was whether the funds were being expended on a commercial basis and in the absence of any evidence, it was unlawful to conclude that the petitioner trust was being run on commercial basis

Petition was allowed, impugned order as well as certificate of Collective Bargaining Agent were declared to have been issued without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

2016 PLC 394 LABOUR-APPELLANT-TRIBUNAL-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 24, 25, 26, 34 & 48Collective Bargaining AgentDetermination

Referendum, through which appellant was determined as Collective Bargaining Agent, was declared illegal by the Labour Court

Validity

Labour Court declared the referendum illegal because all unions of all divisions of the project, were not invited to take part in it

Labour Court had observed that the whole project and not a division of it, was the "establishment"

Under S.24 of the Sindh Industrial Relations Act, 2013, determination and certification of Collective Bargaining Agent, was the exclusive function of Register Trade Unions; and his acts/orders were not subject to appeal or application before the Labour Court, though his order determining Collective Bargaining Unit under S.25 of Sindh Industrial Relations Act, 2013 had been made appealable before the Labour Court under S.26 of said Act

Section 34 of Sindh Industrial Relations Act, 2013, under which General Secretary of one Union, had filed application before the Labour Court, pertained to redressal of individual grievance of a worker against his employer

Registrar Trade Unions, was not the employer

Remedy against order of Registrar Trade Unions under S.24 of Sindh Industrial Relations Act, 2013 lay in filing a constitutional petition before the High Court

Application of General Secretary before the Labour Court being not maintainable, Labour Court had erred in holding otherwise for ridiculous reason

In the present case, the workers of all unions, were employees of the Irrigation Department and not of separate establishments

Irrigation Department as a whole was the establishment; and trade unions could be formed for the whole department and not for its each office or project

One Collective Bargaining Agent could exist for the whole department, unless a Collective Bargaining Unit was determined under S.25 of the Sindh Industrial Relations Act, 2013

Impugned judgment being not sustainable, was set aside and appeal was allowed.

2014 PLC 312 LABOUR-APPELLANT-TRIBUNAL-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

Ss. 24, 41, 52 & 54(2)Collective Bargaining AgentDetermination ofGrievance petitionAppeal against decision of Labour Court

Labour Court disposed of grievance petition filed by respondent in terms of direction that Registrar, Trade Unions should hold election within the period of one month

Chairman of Election Committee issued Election Schedule with certain conditions

Election was to be held on the basis of panel and both panels submitted their nomination papers on the basis of panel, and date was fixed for scrutiny

Petitioner claimed that he along with other candidates reached at place of scrutiny, but neither Chairman Election Committee nor other Members reached there

Petitioner alleged that on next day he came to know that the nomination papers of his panel had been rejected by Registrar, Trade Unions, and declared the panel of appellant as successful unopposed

Record had shown that six candidates of the panel of the petitioner allegedly submitted application before Chairman Election Committee for withdrawal of their candidature

Chairman Election Committee was under obligation to issue notice to the head of the panel group on the basis of application of said six candidates to clarify the position of panel group, but that procedure was not adopted by Chairman Election Committee

Chairman Election Committee while rejecting the panel group based his contention at one of the conditions in election schedule to the effect that if a party had not come before Election Committee, the other group would be declared unopposed

In the present case, petitioner panel filed nomination papers and he along with other candidates and members reached at place of scrutiny, but neither the Chairman of the Committee nor members reached there for the purpose of scrutiny

Petitioner, in circumstances, could not be said to have not come before Election Committee

Labour Court was justified for giving direction of holding fresh election in a fair manner

Order/judgment passed by Labour Court was upheld, and appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

2012 PLC 416 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

R. 30Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199Constitutional petitionCollective Bargaining AgentDetermination of

Petitioner Union claimed that it was announced successful in referendum orally for determination of Collective Bargaining Agent, but result was changed, altered and rival union was declared successful

Counsel for the petitioner had failed to substantiate his contention that result of referendum was manipulated or altered or changed; and success of the petitioner union was turned into defeat

Petitioner could not pinpoint or refer to any document available on record to prove its allegations

Registrar of Trade Unions who conducted the referendum, had also refuted the allegations levelled by the petitioner

Allegation of rigging, alternation/manipulation of result of referendum required thorough probe, which exercise could not be undertaken in constitutional jurisdiction of High Court

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

2007 PLC 366 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 9, 12 & 20Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199Constitutional petitionRegistration of Trade UnionCancellation of registrationCollective Bargaining AgentDetermination of

First application filed by respondent Union for registration of Trade Union was rejected by Registrar Trade Unions, after verification of its contents, but second application filed by respondent was allowed by the Registrar

Petitioner had alleged that investigation carried out by the Registrar leading to registration of respondent-Union, was arbitrary, illegal without jurisdiction and that Collective Bargaining Agent proceedings were also in violation of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002

Registrar Trade Unions had proceeded to register the Union vide registration as was conveyed by the department to General Secretary of the Union by a slipshod order

No reasoning was attached thereto nor there appeared to be an inquiry conducted by department with 1/5th members of the establishment workers in support of the Union for determination of Collective Bargaining Agent

Grievance of petitioner was that Registrar and the Department did not care to verify the number of workers employed in the establishment nor that requirement was fulfilled by the union in gross violation of the law and that the Union was illegally registered

Validity

Registrar of Trade Unions being statutory Authority, was required to discharge its legal position

No speaking order being available on record, impugned order was set aside with direction to the Registrar to conduct an impartial inquiry into the matter and then proceed to pass a speaking order

Impugned registration awarded to the union was set aside/cancelled, matter was remanded to Registrar Trade Unions to consider application afresh and conduct impartial inquiry in the matter and then proceed to pass appropriate order, accordingly.