Find a Lawyer

Application No. 346 of 1973, decided on 24th May 1975.

‑---S. 32(1‑A)‑Adjudication of demands‑Application for ‑ Locus standi‑Trade Union not enjoying status of Collective Bargaining Agent‑Cannot make application‑No proof that Union bad one‑third workers of establishment as its members‑One of the demands that status of Union as Collective Bargaining Agent be recognised‑Union, in circumstances, presumed not to be enjoying status of Collective Bargaining Agent hence not competent to make application under S. 32(1‑A).

Humid Siddlqut for Appellant.

S. M. Yaqoob for Respondent.

This is as application brought by Karachi Hosiery Mills Workers' Union against Messrs Dawood Hosiery Mills. Karachi for adjudication of demands under section 32 (1‑A) of I. R. O., 1969.

The facts leading to this case are that the applicants' Union is a Registered Trade Union and claims to be Collective Bargaining Agent in the establishment of the respondent's Mills. The workers joined the applicants' Union which caused annoyance to the Management and they administered threats to the workers and asked them to desist from taking part in the Union activities. The Managements' hostile attitude compelled the Union to raise an Industrial dispute and it served notice under section 26(1) of I. R. O., 1969 upon the Management. The respondent/Management turned a deaf ear and was not prepared to negotiate and discuss the charter of demands. Thereafter strike notice dated 2‑6‑1973 under section 2((3) of I. R. O., 1969 was served upon the respondent whereupon conciliation meetings were held but to no effect. On failure of conciliation meetings the respondent assured the applicant that they would settle the matter amicably but to no result and as such the workers resorted to strike from 8‑8‑1973. This Court prohibited the strike in an application bearing No. 225/73 under section 45 of I. R. O., 1969 and they resumed work on 29‑9‑1975. The applicants' Union prays for adjudication of the demands raised by the Union in respect of the workers in respondents' establishment under section 32 (1‑A), Charter of Demands dated 12‑1‑1974 (Statement of claim) contains 22 demands.

The respondents have contested the matter and raised pleas that the applicants' Union is not Collective Bargaining Agent in the respondent's establishment nor legally constituted and the application is not maintainable in law.

The first and main issue involved in the instant application is:-

Whether the applicants Union is Collective Bargaining Agent of the respondent's establishment and whether the Union has locus stand to file the application under section 32 (1‑A) of I. R. O., 19697

My finding is in the negative fox the following reasons :‑

The respondent has challenged the status of applicants' Union as Collective Bargaining Agent ab initio. The burden of proof of this issue heavily lay on applicants' Union but they have failed to discharge it. I reproduce demand No. 21 as under

"Demand No. 21.‑That the demand to accept the Karachi Hosiery Mills Workers' Union as a Collective Bargaining Agent is a reasonable demand and may be granted in view of the fact (see) sole organization representing the workers of some 50 Hosiery Mills at Karachi and recognized as such by them"

Thus it is the case; of the applicants' Union itself that the applicants' Union has no status of Collective Bargaining Agent in the establishment of the respondent. This admission in Demand No. 21 itself falsifies the staid of Collective Bargaining Agent as raised is papa. No I of the main applica tion. The contents of the demand No. 21 decide the fate of their status. It may be mentioned here that Mr. Hamid Siddiqui for the applicants' Union could not speak a single word in his arguments as to this admission of the applicants' Union in Demand No. 21.

It has been argued by Mr. S. M. Yaqoob for the respondent that applicants' Union was registered on 7‑11‑1961 and from the date of the registration till 1973 the applicants' Union never claimed to be Collective Bargaining Agent of the respondents' establishment and of sudden the applicant claimed to be Collective Bargaining Agent of the respondent's establishment and other, about 50 Hosiery Factories in Karachi. It has been further argued by him that Collective Bargaining Agent character was ' challenged throughout by the respondents. It has been further argued by him that the applicants' Union had made reference to Exh. 27 which relates to a compromise of individual grievances of individual workers and was not sent before the conciliator and it is not settlement for a claim within the meaning of section 2 (xxiv) of I.R.O., 1969 as it is not in prescribed form nor its copy have been sent to the prescribed authority. I find force in his arguments. Exb. 27 is a carbon copy of the letter. Muhammad Yousuf for the respondent denies to have received it. The applicant has failed to prove that it was served on the respondent. This Exh. 27 will not confer upon the Union the status of Collective Bargaining Agent.

It has also been argued by Mr. S. M. Yaqoob that mere registration of Union is not sufficient to be Collective Bargaining Agent and even if there is one registered Trade Union, section 22 (1) provides that the Trade Union should have one‑third workers of the establishment as member of the) Union to be Collective Bargainging Agent. There is force in this contention. It is not proved on record that one‑third number of the workers employed, in the respondent's establishment are members of the Union.

The applicants' Union has brought a photostat copy of certificate dated 16‑8‑1973 Exh. 40 on record through Mr. Mehar Illahi, Senior Clerk in Labour Department, during his cross‑examination. But this certificate Exh.40 concerns Messrs Omega Hosiery and not the respondent. This certificate would be of no avail to applicant s Union as it does not relate to the res pondent's establishment.

Evidence of Mr. Muhammad Yousuf coupled with contents of Demand No. 21 and circumstances on record prove that the applicants' Union is not Establishment. Therefore Collective Bargaining Agent in the respondents the applicant‑Union has no legal character to raise an industrial dispute or do or undertake Collective Bargaining with the respondent employer. The applicants' Union has no locus standi to file the present application under section 32 (1‑A) of I. R. O., 1969. The applicant is incompetent. Conse quently I dismiss the application without going into the charter of Demands'.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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