Find a Lawyer

( ) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1999)‑

Ss. 8(3), (7), 10 & 11‑Trade Union‑Amendment in Constitution - No room in law for any challenge by employer considering himself itself affected by decision of Registrar in favour of a Trade Union -Notice to employer‑Not contemplated by law‑No grievance, held, can be made in case of Registrar or Appellate Court not hearing employer.‑[Notice].

(b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑

‑‑ Ss. 8 & 10‑Trade Union‑Amendment in Constitution‑Objec tion‑Registered Trade Union of workers‑Has as such no rights vis‑a‑vis employer‑Industrial dispute capable of being raised only by a Collective Bargaining Agent‑Mere registration of Trade Union Does not pre‑empt employer from raising appropriate objection as to its legality and/or its members being not workmen‑Registration of amendments in constitution of Union by Labour Court‑Neither directly affected employers nor caused them any immediate prejudice Employer, held, need not have been beard while registering amendments in constitution of Union, moreso in view of there being no such legai requirement.‑[Industrial dispute]. [p. 569]B & C

Ferris on Extraordinary Legal Remedies, p. 199 ; Tariq Transport Co.,

Lahore v. The Sargodha‑Behra Bus Service and others P L D 1958 S C (Pak.) 437 and Abdul Jamil v. Registrar of Trade Unions, West Pakistan and another P L D 1971 Lab. 220 ref.

Mansoor Ahmed Khan for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.

A. A. Fazeel for Respondent No. 3.

Dates of hearing : 26th and 27th March, 1978.

This petition by the employer is directed against an order made by

the Labour Court in appeal reversing an order made by the Registrar of

Trade Unions, rejecting an application made by the respondent No. 3

. registered Union, for giving effect to certain amendments in its constitution.

2. The facts giving rise to this petition are that on 19‑9‑1972 the

respondent‑Trade Union, which was then known as Globe Commercial

Enterprises Store Managers Association, applied for its registration as a

Trade Union to the Registrar of Trade Unions under the Industrial Relations

Ordinance, 1969. In the application it was stated that the Union was a

Union of employees (Store Manager) who had a right to form a Union under

‑the 1. R. O. as they were engaged as workmen in the industry. One of the

objects, according to its constitution was to strive for maintaining cordial relations between the employers and the members of the Union and the membership was open to persons working as Store Managers in the Company. The application was granted and the Union was registered on 26‑9‑1972. On 22‑3‑1974, the name of the Union was changed to Bata Shoe Co. (Pak.) Ltd., Store Managers Association. In 1975, the respondent‑Union effected certain further changes and alterations in its constitution and on 3‑1‑1975 requested the Registrar of Trade Unions to register the same. These alterations were that its name be changed from Bata Shoe Co. (Pak.) Ltd. Store Managers Association, Sind to Bata Shoe Co. (Pak.) Ltd. Employees' Association, Sind. The other proposed amendments were consequential only.

3. The Registrar of Trade Unions refused to accede to the Union's request to register the amendments on the ground that "an Association of Officers cannot become Union of employees simply by making an amend ment in the constitution" and that the respondent's Association had been registered as an Association of Officers (Employers) and its membership cannot be extended to the employees.

4. The Union went in appeal to the Labour Court which was allowed on the ground that Store Managers who were the members of the respondent Union were workmen within the meaning of the expression as defined in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and, therefore, the Union's application. to register the amendments effected by them was accepted.

5. Before I come to the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. I may add that the assumption made by the Registrar that the respondent Union had been registered as a Trade Union of employers was incorrect inasmuch as its registration' was sought as a Trade Union of workmen and had been registered as such. In this view of the matter alone, the Registrar, who was admittedly not re‑opening the initial registration of the respondent‑Trade Union as a Trade Union, should have allowed the applica tion to register the amendments. '

6. Mr. Mansoor Ahmed Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioners challenged the order of the Labour Court firstly on the ground that it was an ex parte order without any notice to the petitioner‑Company and, therefore, in violation of the principles of natural justice. It would appear to me that there would be no question of hearing the petitioners if the law either expressly or impliedly excluded the employer from the proceedings in question. In so far as the law is concerned, an application for registration of a Trade Union or for effecting amendments is to be made to the Registrar. Significantly, the law in subsections (3) and (7) of section 8 of the I. R. O. provides for appeal but only if the application for registration of a Trade Union or an application seeking approval of amendments made in the constitution of a . registered Trade Union is rejected by the Registrar. Again under section 10 only the Registrar is empowered to apply to the Labour Court for cancellation of registration of a Trade Union or the Registrar may himself cancel a registration if a Union has ceased to exist but in either case only the Trade Union aggrieved can appeal under section 11. In other words there is no room for any challenge‑by an employer, who may consider itself affected by the decision of the Registrar in favour of a Trade Union. A It follows, therefore, that the law does not contemplate any notice to the employer and no grievance can be made if the Registrar or the appellate Cour does not hear the employer.

7. It was next contended that irrespective of the I. R. O. the petitioner ought to have been heard for the petitioner was directly affected by the proceedings. To my mind, there is no room for recourse to audi alteram partem if the law excludes a party's presence in a proceeding. Be that as it may, the alternative contention is premised on an unjustified assumption that the petitioner was being directly affected or immediately prejudiced by the said proceeding. A registered Trade Union of workmen has as such no rights vis‑a‑vis the employer under the 1. R. O. An industrial dispute under', section 43 of the Ordinance can only be raised by a Collective Bargaining) Agent. No doubt that a registered Trade Union can under section 22 of the Ordinance aspire to become a Collective Bargaining Agent but not without notice to the employer and when that occasion arises, the employer can certainly raise the objection as to the legality of the registration of the Union or that the Union does not have as its members at least one‑third of the total number of workmen employed in the establishment. Mr. Ali Ahmed Fazeel, the learned counsel for the Union did not hasitate to concede that mere registration of a Trade Union will not pre‑empt the employer from raising appropriate objection as to its legality and/or that its member are not workmen. The result is that the registration of the amendments by C the Labour Court has neither directly affected the petitioner nor caused then any immediate prejudice, and, therefore, the alternative contention is also of no avail to the petitioner.

8. There is still another aspect of the matter to which my attention was invited by Mr. Ali Ahmad Fazeel, the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition for it was not a party to the proceedings before the lower Courts. The learned counsel invited my attention to the following passage from the Extraordinary Legal Remedies by Ferris at page 199 :‑

"174‑175.‑As a general rule certiorari will not issue at the instance of one not named as a party to the proceeding in which the judgment or order sought to be reviewed was entered. Where one not a party seeks to use certiorari, he must show that the decision sought to be reviewed is directed against him or his property in the sense that the enforcement of the decision would involve special immediate and in its effect a direct injury to his interests. But if petitioner is a party in substance though not in form, be may have the writ. It is not necessary that he be a party to the record, but only that he be interested in the subject‑matter upon which the record acts."

9. The aforesaid passage was approved by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Tarlq Transport Co., Lahore v. The Sargodha‑Bhera Bus Service and others (P L D 1958 S C (Pak.) 437). As observed by me earlier there is no immediate or direct injury caused by the impugned order to the interests of the petitioner. I am fortified in this view by a decision of the Lahore High Court reported in Abdul Jamil v. Registrar of Trade Unions, West Pakistan arid another (P L D 1971 Lah. 220). This was a reverse case in which registration of a Staff Union of supervisors as a Trade Union of employers was challenged on the ground that, its members were workmen and the Court declined to interfere on the ground that among others, that such a dispute can be resolved when an industrial dispute is raised, by the rival Trade Union who claimed to represent workmen, in proceedings under the Ordinance itself.

10. The result is that there is no merit in this petition and it is dismissed with costs.

s. A. H. Petition 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.