Find a Lawyer

Constitutional Petition No. S‑47 of 1984, decided on 13th August, 1985.

‑‑‑S. 10‑‑Cancellation of registration of trade union‑‑Such registration having been granted as compromise before Labour Court in pending appeal against refusal by Authority to register same‑‑As result of compromise there being no decision before High Court to be examined on merits, High Court, held, not to import its own views without material and evidence submit by parties before Authority, and verdict of such authority brought before High Court‑‑Case remanded to Authority with direction that whole controversy should be properly examined‑ Applications for registration to be disposed of according to law after notice to petitioner union.

Rashid Ahmed for Appellant.''

Abdus Sattar Shaikh, A.A. ‑G. for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.

S.M. Muslim Naqvi for Respondent No. 3.

Mirza Muhammad Kazim for Respondents Nos. 4, 5 and 6.

Date of hearing: 13th August, 1985.

Petitioner is one of the Trade Unions of the employees of the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation. The petitioner also happens to be the collective bargaining agent for K. M.C. employees, which may be called an establishment. Respondents Nos. 4, 5 and 6 are also Trade Unions of workers but are serving under Karachi Water and Sewerage Board, who though not respondent, are represented by Mr. Umar Yousuf Deda on Court notice.

The grievance raised in this petition is that respondents Nos. 4, 5 and 6 have been registered as Trade Unions of employees serving under the Karachi Water and Sewerage Board and perhaps are aspiring to become Collective Bargaining Agent for the Karachi Water and Sewerage Board. The petitioner feels aggrieved against this because according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, if this is permitted, the petitioner who is already acting as a Collective Bargaining Agent for the Karachi Water and Sewerage Board as well would be deprived of that representative character, so far as the Karachi Water and Sewerage Board is concerned.

It may be stated that some times in 1983 the three respondent Unions had applied for registration, but this registration was refused by the Registrar of Trade Unions through a communication, dated 11‑5‑1983 on the reasons which are given below:‑‑

"The above application for the registration have been rejected by the Registrar of Trade Union, Sind, Karachi as on examination of the relevant Ordinance namely Sind Local Government (Amendment) Ordinance, 1983, published in the Sind Government Gazette, dated 25‑1‑1983, it has been established that the Karachi Water and Sewerage Board is part and parcel of Karachi Metro politan Corporation and not a separate establishment for the purpose of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969,"

Against the decision quoted above the three respondents who were refused registration under the above communication filed an appeal before the Sind Labour Court, Karachi. While the appeal was still pending, it appears that the Registrar yielded and giving up the position he had taken earlier, compromised the matter and agreed to register the respondents/ Unions. Unfortunately the point raised in this petition which was also raised before the Labour Court, could not be debated and on the basis of the compromise, an order was passed before Labour Court directing the Registrar to allow registration to the respondents. This was done and the three Trade Unions/ respondents Nos. 4, 5 and 6 were given registration by the Registrar.

When the petitioners came to know about this, they immediately reacted and filed an application, dated 15th December, 1983 raising their grievance against registration and praying for the cancellation of the registration in terms of section 10 of I.R.O., 1969. Instead of issuing notice to the parties concerned, and giving hearing to them and examining the controversy in depth, the Registrar simply replied back to say:‑‑

"this is to inform you that these three unions registered in the Karachi Water and Sewerage Board were given registration on the directions of the Sind Labour Court." Even the copies of certificate of Registration were refused. In this situation the point agitated remains unexamined and the controversy remains unresolved. As a matter of fact there is no decision before the High Court to be examined on merits as the point involved was neither examined at the appellate stage, nor by the Registrar of the Trade Unions. It would not be proper to import its own view by the High Court without knowing the thinking of the different provisions of law on the facts and circumstances existing and the material and evidence which may be forthcoming before these authorities in due course.

I would, therefore, remand the case to the Registrar of Trade Unions, Sind, who, according to the learned counsel, is the proper authority to allow or refuse the registration of the Trade Unions with the direction that the whole controversy should be properly examined and the applications for registration by the three respondents/ Unions disposed of according to law after notice to the petitioner. The order Annexure 1B', dated 21‑9‑1983 which was passed without notice to the petitioner and without assigning any reasons for passing this order is set aside. Parties are directed to appear before the Registrar with their respective grievance.

A.A

Order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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