Find a Lawyer

Industrial Case No. 53 of 1971, decided on 16th November 1971.

Ss. 12(2) & 34‑Collective bargaining agent‑Determination of status‑Regis trar, upon application for declaring a Union as collective‑bargaining agent, failing to hold secret ballot an passing order declaring appli cant Union as such‑Order passed by Registrar, in circumstances, held, bad in law and without jurisdiction‑Union, In circumstances, held, cannot make grievance under S. 34, upon cancellation of such order by Registrar subsequently.

Nisar Ahmed Khan for Applicant.

Dilawar Khan, Assistant Welfare Labour Officer for Respondent No. 1.

Mohammad Akram, Labour Officer for Respondent No. 2.

Zahurul Haq Bar‑at‑Law for Respondent No. 3.

‑‑.It appeals that on an application made by the WAPDA Electric Workers Union Northern Region, Peshawar, the then Registrar, Trade Unions. Peshawar, vide his letter No. 1325, dated 10th March 1970, informed the aforesaid Union that it was the collective bargaining agent of the workers in the "said establishment". Subsequently, ever, vide his letter No. 1502-3, dated 4th April 1970, the Registrar withdrew this order and informed Electric Workers Union Peshawar that the order was cancelled because it was bad in law.

2. Aggrieved with this latter order, the WAPDA Electric Workers' Union, Northern Region, Peshawar, through its General Secretary, made an application under section 34 of the I. R. O., 1969, against the Registrar, Trade Unions, N. W. F. P., Peshawar and WAPDA, though the Chief Engineer North), Electricity. Peshawar, praying that the order of respondent No. 1 contained in his letter No. 1502‑3, dated 4th April 1970, cancelling its status as a collective bargaining agent in respect of the technical staff (non‑gazetted) of WAPDA establishment in the Northern Region, may be declared void and contrary to law and respondent No. 2 be directed to treat the petitioner‑Union as the sole collective bargaining agent. Subsequently, on an application made in that behalf, the West Pakistan Hydro‑Electric Central Labour Union, Nanakpura, Peshawar was also impleaded as respondent No. 3.

3. The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner‑Union had no cause of action to move this Court to declare the order of the Registrar of Trade Unions, N.W. F. P., Peshawar, cancelling their status as a collective bargaining agent, as void and illegal because the order of the Registrar appointing the petitioner‑Union as the collective bargaining agent was basically illegal, and, we feel, there is considerable force in this preliminary objection because under section 22(2) of the I. R. O. it is laid down that "where there are more registered Trade Unions the one in an establishment or a group of establishments, the Registrar shall upon an application made in this behalf by any such Trade Union which has as, its members not less than one third of the total number of workmen employed in such establish ment or group of establishments or by the employers, hold a secret ballot to determine as to which one of such Trade Unions shall be the collective bargaining agent for the establishment or group." This section, namely, 22 also lays down the procedure for holding the secret ballot.

4. It is not disputed that there are more than one registered Trade Unions in the WAPDA. It is also admitted that although the petitioner‑Union did make an application to the Registrar, N.W. F. P., Peshawar that their Union may be declared a collective bargaining agent, but the Registrar did not, as required under subsection (2) of section 22 of the I. R. O. hold any secret ballot to determine as to which one of such Trade Unions shall be the collective bargaining agent for the whole establishment or group. The order of the Registrar declaring the petitioner‑Union as the collective bargaining agent was, therefore, obviously not only bad in law but was without jurisdiction. The petitioner Union should not, therefore, feel aggrieved with the subsequent order of the Registrar cancelling its status as a collective bargain ing agent. Mr. Shaida A. Qureshi, member of the Court, agrees with me in this behalf. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.