Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No., 218 of 1983, heard on 5th March, 1983.

‑‑ Art. 9‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 22 Secret ballot, holding of‑Contentions that (i) application moved for holding secret ballot not by Secretary of Workers' Union under S. 22(2); (ii) Registrar, Trade Unions failed to comply with mandatory provisions of S,22(3); (iii) employer violated provisions of subsection (4) of S. 22 in not submitting list of all workmen employed in establishment ; (iv) Registrar. Trade Unions violated provisions of S. 22(5) and (v) he has not intimated date fixed for poll to each contestant as required by sub‑cl. (a) of subsection (9) of S. 22 as such holding of secret ballot in violation of provisions of S. 22 is illegal, arbitrary, mala fide and without lawful authority‑Held, contentions based on disputed questions of facts which cannot be gone into by High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction and controversy cannot be satisfactorily resolved without deeper investi gation and prop‑.r inquiry‑Petition dismissed.

Taj Muhammad Khan Langah and Aqa Asaf Jafri for Petitioners.

M. S. Bokhari and Moin‑ud‑Din Ch. for Respondent No. 1.

Date of hearing : 5th March, 1983.

This is a petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981, whereby Mehnut Kush Union and Labour Union Colony Textile Mills Ltd., Ismailabad Multan, (Reed.), want this Court to declare the holding of secret ballot to determine as to which one of such Trade Unions shall be Collective Bargaining Agent for the establishment, to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

2. The facts giving rise to this petition in brief as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners, are that in the Colony Textile Mills Limited Ismailabad Multan, there are four Registered Trade Unions i.e. Mehnut Kush Union, (2) Labour Union, (3) workers Union and (4) Employees Union. An application for holding secret ballot was made by Abdul Majeed, Secretary, Workers Union. On this application the Registrar of Trade Unions, Multan Region, Multan, respondent No. 1, initiated proceedings and called meeting of the Unions except Mehnut Kush and Labour Unions, the petitioners. Subsequently petitioner No. 1, came to know of some holding of meeting for secret ballot. It raised objections before respondent No. 1. After that another meeting was called by respondent No. 1 wherein three Union Councils namely Mehnut Kush Union Workers Union and Employees Union participated but Labour Union could not participate because no notice was issued to it. On the same day petitioner No. I raised some objections. Petitioner No. 2 also sent certain objections. On 14th February, 1983 it was decided that another meeting would be held on 17th February, 1983 to finalise the arrangements of secret ballot. This date was, however, not intimated to Labour Union, petitioner No. 2, in spite of 'the fact that respondent No. 1 was asked to intimate further proceedings. On 17th February, 1983 the petitioner No. 1 remained whole day in the office of respondent No. 1 in wait of decision as to the holding of the meeting but no meeting was held and orally it was told that due to pre‑engagements of respondent No. 1 the meeting could not be held and the next date would be intimated to the concerned. Thereafter petitioners came to know that respondent No. 1 has already finalised the arrangements of secret ballot by excluding petitioner No. 2 from the referendum and allowing petitioner No. 1 symbol of ﺍﺮﻮﻬﺘﻫ by fixing the date 22nd February, 1983 for holding the poll. Hence this petition.

3. Learned counsel has raised the following points :‑

(i) That Abdul Majeed who had moved an application for holding the secret ballot was not Secretary of the Workers Union and as such there was no valid application under subsection (2) of section 22 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance ;

(ii) that the Registrar who under subsection (3) of section 22 of the industrial Relations Ordinance was legally bound to call upon by notice in writing every Registered Trade Union in the establishment to indicate whether it desires to be contestant in the secret ballot and if so to submit him within the time specified in the notice list of its members showing, in respect of each member, his parentage, age, the section or department and the place in which be is employed, his ticket number and the date of his becoming member, has failed to comply with these mandatory requirements of the law ;

(iii) that the employer has failed to submit list of all workmen employed in the establishment showing in respect of each workman, his parentage, age, the section or the department and the place in which he is employed, his ticket number and the date of his employment in the establishment and as such the provisions of sub section (4) of section 22 have been violated ;

(iv) that respondent No. I has also violated the provisions of sub section (5) of section 22 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance inasmuch as after verification of the list of voters submitted by Trade Union, he has not prepared a list of voters including the name of every workman and did not send to each of the contesting Trade Union a certified copy of the list of voters so prepared by him four days before the date fixed for the poll; and

(v) that respondent No. 1 has not intimated the date fixed for the poll to each of the contesting Trade Union as required by sub‑clause (a) of subsection (9) of section 22 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance.

Learned counsel has vigorously argued that holding of secret ballot in violation of the provisions of section 22 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance is illegal, arbitrary, mala fide and also without lawful authority.

4. As against this the representative of respondent No. 1, the learned counsel for respondents 2 to 4 have supported the action of holding the secret ballot. On behalf of respondent No. 1 comments have been filed wherein the allegations of the petitioners that respondent No. 1 had violated the provisions of section 22 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance have been denied. As against point No. (i) of the petitioner it has been stated by the respondents that Abdul Majeed who moved application for holding of the secret ballot under subsection (2) of section 22 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance was in fact the Secretary of Workers Union. As far point No. (ii) the respondent s case is that the Registrar bad by notice in writing called upon each Registered Trade Unions in the establishment to indicate whether it desires to be contestant in the secret ballot and if so, to submit to him within the time specified in the notice a list of its members showing, in respect of each member, the particulars as required by clause (b) of subsection (3) of section 22 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance and as such the provisions of subsection (3) have fully been complied with by the Registrar.

As far point No. (iii) of the learned counsel for the petitioners, it has been stated by the respondents that the employer had submitted a list of all workmen employed in the establishment with particulars required by clause (a) of section 4 and as such relevant law has not been violated. As far point No. (v) the respondents have stated that the Registrar after verification of the list submitted by the Trade Unions had prepared a list of voters as required by subsection (5) of section 22 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance and had sent to each of the contesting Trade Union a certified copy of the list of the voters so prepared. Their case is that as far the Labour Union it had not indicated its desire to contest the secret poll. Furthermore certified copy of the list of the voters prepared under subsection (5) of section 22 was sent to Mehnut Kush Union, petitioner No. 1 four days before the poll but its Secretary refused twice to collect it and a report to this effect was made in writing by the person who was deputed to hand over the certified copy of the list of voters. It has also been submitted that since this writ petition was filed on 19th February, 1983 it shows that the petitioners were fully aware of the holding of the secret poll on 22nd February, 1983.

As far the last point raised by the learned counsel the respondents state that the Registrar had intimated the date of the poll to each of the contesting Trade Union and as such the requirement of subsection (9) of section 22 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance were also met with.

5. The above statement of facts, the nature of the allegations and the reply thereto indicate that the facts asserted by the petitioners have been refuted by the respondents, the petitioners' contentions are, therefore, based on disputed questions of facts which cannot be gone into by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Furthermore, the controversy cannot be satisfactorily resolved without deeper investigation and proper inquiry.

6. For what has been stated above I am not inclined to interfere in the matter while sitting in constitutional jurisdiction. The petition, is therefore, dismissed leaving the parties to bear their to own costs.

A. E. 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.