Find a Lawyer

Petition No. 68 of 1974, decided on 16th November 1974.

Ss. 22 (9) 34 & 36-Jurisdiction of Labour Court-Registrar Trade Unions after holding secret ballet declaring one of the Unions as Collective Bargaining Agent-Rival Union purportedly under S. 34 moving Labour Court challenging order of Registrar-Rival Union, held, not entitled to raise industrial dispute on that account as having no right secured under law, settlement or award having been infringed and Labour Court, held, has no jurisdiction to interfere in verdict of Registrar.

Aga Asif Jafri for Petitioner.

All Ahmad Mahmood for Respondent No. 1.

Nazir Ahmad Naz for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3.

The circumstances out of which the present petition has arisen are as follows:

The Municipal Committee, Multan has a number of registered Trade Unions and three of them opted to contest the secret ballot for deter mination of Collective Bargaining Agent which was held on 10th September 1974, under the supervision of the Registrar, Trade Unions, Multan respon dent No. 1, the participants being

(1) Municipal Khakrob Mashki Union. Multan, (2) Municipal Labour Union, Multan, (3), Mashki Sweepers' Union, Multan.

The Registrar, prepared the lists of the voters having no regard to the lists supplied by the Municipal Committee, respondent No. 3 as a result of the ballot conducted by him Municipal Khakrob Mashki Union respondent No. 2 was declared to be C. B. A. on 13th September 1974, securing 797 votes against 360 votes secured by Municipal Labour Union and 620 votes by Mashki Sweepers' Union. Since the votes secured by respondent No. 2 did not represent the votes to the extent of 1/3rd number of the workmen in the establishment, the election could not be held valid under the law in accordance with the provisions of subsection (9), clause (e) of section 22 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. It was therefore, prayed that the impugned order dated 13th September 1974, be declared as illegal, void and inoperative and that the respondent No. 1 be directed to hold secret ballot afresh to determine the status of C. B. A.

The petition was resisted on the preliminary ground that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present action under the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, (hereinafter mentioned as Ordinance). On merits it was maintained that the number of the work men of the establishment entitled to participate in the ballot was agreed to be 2225 and the respondent No. 2 succeeded to secure the votes px9eedino 1/3^rd of the total number of the workman and was rightly declared to be the C. B. A. It was also urged that the present dispute could not be treated as Industrial dispute or an appeal against the order of the Registrar, Trade Unions. The provisions of section 22 (9) (e) are as follows:

After the conclusion of the count, declared Trade Union which has received highest number of votes to be the C. B. A.:

Provided, that no Trade Union shall be declared to be the C. B. A. for an establishment or group of establishments unless the number of votes received by it is not less than 1/3rd of the total number of work men employed in such establishment or group.

The aforesaid provision of the Ordinance nowhere authorises a Labour Court to interfere in the proceedings of the secret ballot or in the verdict given by the Registrar Trade Union regarding the C. B. A. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not refer to any provision except section 34 or section 36 of the Ordinance to explain the jurisdiction of the Court while dealing with the industrial dispute. According to section 34 a Labour Court can be moved by a C. B. A. for the enforcement of any right guaranteed or secured to it under any law, award or settlement while the specific provision referred to in section 36 merely advised the Labour Court in regard to the procedure for the determination of an in dustrial dispute and conferred upon it the powers of a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure. Neither of the two provisions relied on behalf of the petitioner could help him in maintaining the present petition because neither the present dispute could be interpreted to raise any cause of action for the enforcement of the right accrued under any law, award or settlement to the petitioner-Union nor could it be heard under the other provision which has nothing to do with the maintainability of the present dispute. I therefore fully agree with the learned counsel the respon dent that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain or to deal with the present dispute. The petition is therefore dismissed on the point of jurisdic tion without going into the merits.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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