' This application under Section 22-EE of I.R.O., 1969 has been moved by National Bank of Pakistan Employees Union (Regd) N.-W.F.P. Peshawar, Peshawar Cantt against National Bank of Pakistan Employees Union Malakand Division (Mardan Region) Regional Office Mardan and Registrar of trade unions Malakand Division, Swat for cancellation of the registration of respondent No,1, which was registered by the Registrar of Trade Unions, Malakand Division Swat (respondent No,2). During the proceedings the National Bank of Pakistan, I.I. Chundrigar Road, Karachi, also moved an application under Order I, rule 10 C.P.C. For impleading it as respondent No,3 which was allowed vide order dated 19-11-2002 of this Bench.
2. Case of the petitioners-union as set out in the petition is that vide order dated 20-8-1976 passed by the learned Senior Member in Petition No,2(8)/75 filed under section 22-EE of IRO, 1969 the following five CBUs were determined and certified in the National Bank of Pakistan:--
1. Karachi Unit All Zones in Karachi Principal Office.
2. Quetta Unit All Zones in Quetta Principal Office.
3. Lahore Unit All Zones in Lahore Principal Office.
4. Peshawar Unit All Zones in Peshawar Principal Office,
5. Head Office Unit Workmen employed in the Head Office of the Bank at Karachi and Managing Directors Office at Islamabad will constitute an independent CBU.
' The aforesaid arrangements of five CBUs were allowed to be continued vide orders dated 12-5- 1983 and 7-3-1992 passed by the Commission in Case No,19(1)/82 and 19(4)/90.
3. It was further contended that in terms of the aforesaid orders passed under section 22-EE of I.R.O., 1969 determining five CBUs in the National Bank of Pakistan, the Peshawar Unit comprising of all the establishments of the National Bank of Pakistan located in N.-W.F.P. But in violation of the aforesaid decision of determination of five CBUs and in contravention of the provision of section 22-EE(3) of the I.R.O. 1969, the respondent No,2 on 6-8-2002 has registered the respondent No,1 namely National Bank of Pakistan Employees Union Malakand Division (Mandan Division) and also certified the said union as CBA for the workmen employed in the National Bank of Pakistan Malakand Division/Mardan Region. It is next contended that after determination of the CBU no trade union shall be registered in respect of that unit except for the whole of such unit and no certification or proceedings for determination of. CBA under section 22 shall take place for a part of a CBU or a group of CBU as laid down under section 22-EE (3) of I.R.O., 1969. It is next contended that order of the respondent No,2 registering the respondent No,1 and certifying it as CBA is violative of the provisions of section 22-EE(3) of I.R.O., 1969, hence registration of the respondent No,1 is liable to be cancelled. It was prayed that order of the respondent No,2 registering the respondent No,1 and certifying it as CBA vide order dated 6-8-2002 and approval of its office-bearers vide order dated 8-8-2002 be set aside and the respondent No,2 may be directed to struck off the name of the siad union from their record.
4. The respondents Nos.1, 2 and 3 have filed their written statement. The respondent No,2 namely the Registrar of trade unions Malakand Division (N.-W.F.P.) while filing his written statement has taken the stand that in exercising of his powers under section 13(a) & (c) of the I.R.O., 1969, he has registered the respondent No,2 and also certified it as CBA and thus he has not committed any violation of any law or rules. He also stated that he was not aware of any order passed by the Commission under section 22-EE of the I.R.O., 1969 in respect of CBUs in the establishments of National Bank of Pakistan.
5. The respondent No,1 while filing his written statement/reply has resisted and vehemently opposed the petition by raising inter alia certain legal objections regarding maintainability of the petition. It is strenuously contended that the petitioner union being a trade union, registered in violation of its Constitution and I.R.O., 1969 has no locus standi to move the instant petition. It is next contended that the prayer made in the petition that orders dated 6-8-2002 and 8-8-2002 of the respondent No,2 registering the respondent No,1 and certifying it as CBA and granting approval of its office bearers be set aside, is liable to be dismissed because the respondent No,1 union was registered by Registrar of trade unions Malakand Division, Swat and not by the Registrar of industry-wise trade unions, Islamabad. It is further contended that in view of Section 10 of the I.R.O., 1969, it is the concerned Provincial Labour Court, which can issue order for cancellation of a union upon a complaint made by the Registrar of trade unions of the Division concerned. It is further contended that section 8(4) of the I.R.O., 1969 provide that any change of office-bearers of the union has to be submitted to the Registrar concerned. The petitioner-union therefore should have to file an application before the respondent No,2 for rejecting the change of office-bearers of the union. But since election of the office-bearers of the union have already been approved by the respondent No,2, the only remedy left with the petitioner-union was to move the Labour Court concerned under section 8(7) of the I.R.O., 1969. Thus this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. It is next contended that in view of the Circular No,19/2002 dated 26-7-2002 enclosed at Annexure-R/1, it is now crystal clear that the petitioner-union cannot serve any purpose under the I.R.O, 1969 as 4 different administrative regions have been established by replacing the previous orders of Provincial Regional Headquarters and that there is no such administrative unit which is headed by Provincial Regional Chiefs. The new regions headed by Regional Business Chiefs are directly responsible to the Head Office and now no problem can be resolved through the petitioner-union which is a union on papers. It is further contended that judicial notice may also be taken of this important alteration/modification in the administrative set up of the National Bank of Pakistan by exercising its suo mom powers enjoyed by the Commission under section 22-A(9)(a) of the I.R.O, 1969 which lays down that the Commission on the application or of its own motion initiate prosecution, trial or proceedings or take action with regard to 'any matter relating to its functions. Suo mom proceedings for certification and declaration of CBU which is the exclusive power of the Commission as laid down under section 22-EE of the I.R.O., 1969 be initiated. Learned counsel for the respondent No,1 has prayed that adjudication of the instant petition be stayed till a fresh order under section 22-EE is made view of the aforesaid changes in the administrative set-up of National Bank of Pakistan.
6. On merits the respondent No,1 also controverted all allegations made by the petitioner. The main contention of the respondent No,1 is that the National Bank of Pakistan have revised, re-organised and delaying filed structure vide President's Office Circular No,19/2002 dated 26th July, 2002 and now there is no Provincial Administrative Unit of the Bank in N.-W.F.P. It was also contended that in the Province of N.-W.F.P. The Bank has established four Regional Offices headed by four Regional Chiefs namely (1) Peshawar Region, (2) Mardan Region, (3) Abbottabad Region and . (4) D.I. Khan Region. In terms of the aforesaid circular the Field StruEture stand modified. Thus the previous administrative unit has lost its purpose and usefulness and the problems of the workers cannot be resovled by earlier Regional Headquarters since it does not exist.
8. Arguments were heard on the preliminary legal objections raised by the respondent No,1 The Labour Representative appearing on behalf of the petitioner-union has submitted that in view of the orders of the Commission determining five CBUs in National Bank of Pakistan under section 22- EE of the I.R.O., 1969, no union can be registered after determination/certification of CBU in respect of that unit except for the whole of such unit and no certification or proceedings for determination of CBA under section 22 shall take place for a part of CBU. He further submitted that the respondent No,1 has been registered by the respondent No,2 in contravention of section 22-EE(3) of the I.R.O., 1969. He further urged that he has proved a good case for cancellation of registration of the respondent No, 1 . He further contended that order of the Commission under section 22-EE shall have effect notwithstanding to the contrary contained in this Ordinance. Thus the order of the Commission has an over riding effect, therefore by virtue of an order passed under section 22-EE, the Commission shall also enjoys that powers of cancellation of registration of union registered by Local Registrar of trade union. He contended that on the same analogy the Commission has the powers to withdraw the CBA certificate issued by the respondent No,2 and also to set aside the approval of office bearers accorded by the respondent No,2.
9. Learned Counsel for respondent No,3 National Bank of Pakistan in his arguments relied upon the judgment of Karachi High Court reported in N.L.R. 1987 A.C. Page 207 in re Messrs Jang Publication Ltd. v. Registrar of Trade Unions and another and contended that in terms of the said decision after certification of a CBU, no trade union can be registered in respect of that unit except for the whole of such unit and no certification or proceedings for determination of CBA under section 22 shall take place for a part of a collective bargaining unit or a group of collective bargaining units. In other words he also contended that respondent No,1 has been illegally registered by the respondent No,2.
10. Learned counsel for respondent No,1 union has pointed out that the applicant union is not only illegally registered trade union but also its Constitution is ultra vires of the I.R.O., 1969 as well as of the I.R.O., 2002. The main point urged by the learned counsel is that a union can only exist in relation to an establishment or a group of establishments but since the establishment known as Regional Office N.-W.F.P. Of National Bank of Pakistan is now no-more in existence, thus the applicant-union is an illegally registered trade union. He contended that in view of the administrative orders issued by the President of the National Bank of Pakistan, the office of the Regional Chief of the Province has been restructured and there are now four Regional Business Chiefs namely (1) Peshawar Region,
(2) Mardan Region, (3) Abbottabad Region and (4) D.I.Khan Region. He pointed out that section 6(a)(iv-a) and (iv-b) of the I.R.O., 1969 and also the corresponding provisions contained in I.R.O., 1969 provide that a union has to exist in an establishment or group of establishments. Thus the applicant union which is an illegally registered trade union has no locus standi to move the present application/petition.
11. As regards cancellation of registration of the respondent No,1 is concerned, the learned counsel for the respondent No,1 submitted that since the respondent No,1 union was registered by the respondent No,2 i,e, Registrar of Trade Unions Malakand Division, thus he is the Competent Authority to move a complaint for cancellation of registration of the respondent No,1 before the concerned Provincial Labour Court. It was further submitted that by no stretch of imagination the extraordinary powers given to the Commission under section 22-EE of I.R.O., 1969 can be used to cancel registration of respondent No,1 union. He also made his submissions regarding locus standi of the applicant union but since the illegality in registration of the applicant union, can be examined only by the Provincial Registrar of Trade Union who registers the applicant-union, thus I would not like to repeat the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent No,l.
12. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the representative of the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents Nos.1 and 3. On minute examination of the pleadings of the parties and their respective versions, I hold that cancelation of registration of the respondent No,1 union, if any, lies within the powers of the Registrar of Trade Union Malakand Division or the concerned Labour Court as laid down under section 10 of I.R.O., 1969. Hence I would not like to make any observations on the other preliminary legal objections raised by the learned Counsel for the respondent No,1.
13. In view of the factual position, aforementioned, which neither of the party has controverted, it is an admitted position that vide orders dated 20-8-1976 passed by the Commission in Petition No,2(8)/75, the Commission had determined/certified five CBUs in the National Bank of Pakistan and the said arrangements were allowed to be continued vide orders dated 12-5-1983 and 7-3- 1992 issued in Cases Nos.19(1)/82 and 19(4)/90 and in terms of the aforesaid orders, the Peshawar Unit (one of the CBU as determined by the Commission) comprising of all the establishments of the National Bank of Pakistan located in N.-W.F.P., thus registration/certification of CBA/approval of elections of officers of respondent No,1 by the respondent No,2 is violative of the order determining five CBUs in the National Bank of Pakistan, which contravene the provisions of section 22-EE(3) of the I.R.O., 1969 as such the respondent No,2 has no power to register the respondent No,1 for a part of the unit determined as CBU by the Commission as laid down under section 22-EE (3) of I.R.O., 1969.
14. For the reasons aforementioned, I am of the considered view that registration of the respondent No,1, its certification as CBA and according approval to the elections of its office-bearers by the respondent No,2 is violative of the orders dated 20-8-1976, 15-5-1983 and 7-3-1992 passed by the Commission in the matter of determination of five CBUs in the National Bank of Pakistan. Thus it is proved beyond any doubt that by doing so, the respondent No,2 has contravened the provisions of section 22-EE(3) of I.R.O., '1969, 1 therefore direct the respondent No,2 namely the Registrar of Trade Unions, Malakand Division Swat to move forthwith a complaint under section 10 of the I.R.O, 1969, before the concerned Labour Court, for cancellation of registration of the respondent No, 1 .
15. In terms of the above observations the instant application petition alongwith stay application is disposed of and the respondent No,2 namely Registrar of Trade Unions Malakand Division, Swat is directed to move forthwith the concerned Labour Court with a written complaint under section IQ of I.R.O., 1969 for cancellation of registration of the respondent No,1 namely National Bank of Pakistan Employees Union Malakand Division (Mardan Region). No order as to cost. File be consigned to record.