Find a Lawyer

Petition No.179 of 1984, decided on 12th February, 1986.

---S.22 (4) a (5)--List of worker a-- Verification of--Restriction to verification--Registrar of Trade Unions, held, would have power of verification of lists of workers--Management would be bound to furnish list of workers on demand--Such power of verification, however, would be restricted to those workers only, who would have minimum service of three months and were members of any of contesting trade unions- Power of verification of Registrar under S.22 (4) A (5), Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, however, could not be extended to holding of judicial inquiry to determine status of employee to be within definition of workman or not.

---Ss.2 (viii) & 22(4) a (5)--'Workman"--Determination of--Supervisory staff claiming to be "workmen" being not party before Registrar-Trade Unions, determination of status of such employees to be within ambit of workmen or not being intricate question of law, held, would not fall within domain of such executive official--Labour Court being judicial forum could decide status of employees to be workmen or not.

---Ss.2 (viii) & 22 (4) a (5)--'Workman'--Status granted to supervisory staff--Effect--Grant of status of workmen to supervisory staff by Registrar, Trade Union, being without jurisdiction, held, would be void.

Raja Abdur Rashid alongwith Muhammad Aslam Bhatti for Petitioner.

Muhammad Saleem for Respondent No.l.

Ch. Sadiq Muhammad Warraich for Respondents Nos.2 and 3.

Dandot Cement Company petitioner before me has more than one trade unions of workers in the establishment. On 26-2-1984 workers union Dandot Cement Company, non-C.B.A, applied to the Registrar of Trade Unions respondent No.l herein for holding referendum for the determination of new C.B.A. under section 22 (2) Industrial Relations Ordinance. Besides requiring the trade unions of the workers to give their consent to participate in the referendum and submitting lists of their members, respondent No.l also required the petitioner to furnish a list of the workers. In compliance, the petitioner did furnish the list of workers but excluded therefrom the members of the Supervisory staff including Foremen, Assistant Foremen and Supervisors. Respondent No.1 insisted upon the inclusion of such staff in the list of workers but the petitioner was reluctant to do so on which respondent No.1 held a judicial inquiry, recorded evidence, heard arguments of the management and unions and by the impugned order dated 23-7-1984 held that the disputed staff of Foremen, Assistant Foreman and Supervisors was covered by the definition of workers. The petitioner was accordingly called upon to furnish a complete list of workers including such staff. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has come up to this Court under section 34 I.R.O.

2. The petition was vehemently contested by the Registrar as well as two contestant rival trade unions of workers, who were subsequently allowed to be impleaded as parties. It was maintained that the disputed staff of Foremen, Assistant Foremen and Supervisors was rightly held to be covered by the definition of workers and the petition is frivolous. Both the parties produced their evidence.

3. I have heard the arguments from both sides and perused the record.

4. It appears that respondent No. 1 passed the impugned order suo moto in exercise of his powers under subsections (4) and (5) of section 22 I.R.O. which are reproduced below: -

(4) Every employer shall: -

(a) on being so required by the Registrar, submit a list of all workmen employed in the establishment excluding those whose period of employment in the establishment is less than three months and showing in respect of each workman, his parentage, age, the section or department and the place in which he is employed, his ticket number and the date of his employment in the establishment; and

(b) Provide such facilities for verification of the lists submitted by him and the trade unions as the Registrar may require. Provided that, in computing the period of three months referred to in clause (a) in the case of a workman employed in a seasional factory within the meaning of section 4 of the Factories Act, 1934 (XXV of 1934), the period during which he was employed in the factory during the preceding seasons shall also be taken into account.

(5) The Registrar shall after verification of the list of voters in which shall be included the name of every workman whose period of employment as computed in accordance with subsection (4) is not less than three months and who is a member of any of the contesting trade unions and shall, at least four days period to the date fixed for the Poll, send to each of the contesting trade unions a certified copy of the list of voters so prepared.

5. Whether or not the Foremen, Assistant Foremen and Supervisors serving in the petitioner Company fall within the definition of workers according to the nature of duties performed by them is a different matter but the first question which to my mind arises for consideration is if the respondent Registrar Trade Unions had at all 'the jurisdiction to decide this matter and that too suo motu. The combined reading subsections (4) and (5) of section 22 I.R.O. makes it clear that the Registrar has the power of verification of lists of workers and the management is bound to furnish lists of workers, but such power of verification is only restricted to verify if, workers mentioned in the lists have a minimum service of three months and are members of any of the contesting trade unions. This verification is to be made with the help of the name of worker his parentage, age, the section or department and the place in which he is employed, his ticket number and the date of his employment in the establishment. By no stretch of imagination, the power of verification of the Registrar under subsections (4) and (5) of section 22 I.R.O. is extended to determination by b6lding a judicial inquiry as to who is a workman and who is not. Moreover, the respondent Registrar also entered upon to decide this question suo motu without any aggrieved person assisting this matter before him. It may also be remarked here that the disputed members of the supervisory staff including Foremen, Assistant Foremen and the Supervisors whose status as workers or non-workers was in question before the respondent Registrar were neither party before him nor before this Court. It was therefore, not within the domain of the respondent Registrar to decide intricate question of law as to who is a workman and who is not under these circumstances. Proper course of action for him was to defer the referendum and ask the aggrieved persons to get their status as a worker or non-worker determined by the Labour Court which is a judicial forum to decide such question. The Registrar Trade Unions being only an executive authority under I.R.O. had the least jurisdiction to decide this judicial matter. The question now arises as to whether they petitioner can challenge the impugned order or not. It goes without, saying that if the disputed members of the supervisory staff mentioned above are not workers, the petitioner was justified in not including their names in the list of workers but it has been made to include their names by an order without jurisdiction. It is a settled law that an order without jurisdiction is a viod order and can be challenged bi anyone. I am, therefore, of the view that the impugned order being without jurisdiction is not maintainable.

6. As a sequel to my finding recorded above, I accept this petition and set aside the impugned order of Registrar Trade Unions. The disputed members of the supervisory staff may get their status as workmen or non workmen determined in accordance with law.

A. A.

Petition accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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