' By this writ Petition under Article 199 of 'the Constitution of Pakistan, the Petitioner has assailed 'the order dated 2-5-2003 passed by the Registrar of Trade Unions Sindh; Karachi.
2. This is the third round of Petition before this. Court on the same subject mater. The earlier two Petitions bearing No,206 of 2002 and 83 of 2003 were filed by Karachi Customs Agents Groups and the present Respondents No,2 were disposed off by orders dated. 4-11-2002 and 18-3-2003 respectively and the Registrar Trade Union was directed to decide afresh the application/representation (the application) dated 27-8-2001 filed before him by the Respondent No,2
3. The proceedings started before the Registrar Trade Union on the basis of the application dated 27th of August 2001 filed by the Respondent No,2 under section 10 of the I.R.O.
1969. The gist of the application was that the registration of the petitioner was in contravention of I.R.O. 1969 as it was registered and certified C.B.A. Without inquiry and legal requirements; the Registrar Trade Union on 27-2-1983 illegally issued CBA Certificate in favour of Petitioner for Respondents establishment though the Petitioners were not registered under section (9) of the I.R.O. 1969 for their establishment; therefore, registration of the Petitioner was liable to be cancelled.
The application was decided by the Registrar Trade Unions, vide order dated 2-4-2002, whereby the application of the Respondent No,2 was dismissed.
4. Against the order dated 2-4-2002 the Respondent No,2 filed a C.P. No,206 of 2002 referred above before this Court. By consent this Petition was disposed of on 4-11-2002 and the matter was remanded back to the Registrar Trade Union for decision of the application afresh.
5. The Registrar Trade Unions accordingly took up the matter and once again by order dated 3-1- 2003 rejected the application, of the Respondent No,2. Against this order the Respondents No,2 to 5 filed second C.P. No,83/03 referred above. This petition was heard and by judgment dated Ist of April, 2003 once again the case was remanded back to the Registrar Trade Union with directions to decide the application of the Respondent Nd.2 afresh keeping in view the observations made in the judgment. In pursuance of this direction, the Registrar Trade Unions considered the application and passed the impugned order on 2-5-2003 whereby he partly allowed the application. Of the Respondent No,2. The operative part of the impugned order is reproduced hereunder::- ' After careful consideration of all related facts and aspect of matter, it has been concluded that Karachi By Road Workers Union was formed and registered in respect of 16 Cantractors (Jamadars) as such it will have to strictly limit its activities and to conduct affairs purely within its original defined jurisdiction, boundaries and set parameters it was formed to. The union has to remain but to perform its functions within and to the extent of related Contractors (Jamadars) whatsoever they may be for which it was actually constituted and registered. The said union will no more have a claim and any legitimacy right to (Karachi Customs Agent Group and as such not to put any demand/Charter of Demands, to raise dispute, with them or holding negotiations. Since the union no more to claim its authority and jurisdiction to Karachi Customs Agent Group, hence fairly and reasonably they may have no further bona fide cause of grievance to the existence of union.
' In the light of above detailed discussions coupled with the facts, Karachi By Road Workers Union being the union of 16 Contractors (Jamadars), cannot function or relate itself Karachi Customs Agent Group. However, on consideration of related facts the request made by Karachi Customs Agent Group to initiate action against Karachi By Boad Workers Union for its cancellation is uncalled for and as such cannot be accepted.
' The matter is disposed off in above terms."
6. The Petitioners being aggrieved with the order of the Registrar Trade Unions to the effect that it has restricted their working to the extent of 16 Contractors (Jamadars) and further that it cannot function or relate itself, the Respondent No,2 filed this Petition. The Respondent No,2 has not filed any Petition against the order of the Registrar Trade Unions pertaining to his order refusing the cancellation of registration of the Petitioner's:
7. Heard the learned Counsels and Mr. Ghanghro for Respondent No,l Mr. Shahani, assailed the order inter alia on the ground that the Respondent No,1 while deciding the application of the Respondent No,2 afresh failed to follow the directions of this Court contained in paragraphs 12,16,23,24,25,26 and 27 of the judgment in C.P. No, 83 of 2003, He contended that the Respondent also failed to take into consideration the documents available on his record, which amply proved that the Petitioner had been acting as a collective bargaining agent of all the Respondents.
8. Mr. Shahani submitted that initially the registration of the Petitioners was for sixteen (16)
Jamadars but subsequently in 1995 an amendment was brought in to constitution of the Petitioners, which was approved by Respondent No,1 by his letter dated 9-10-1995. According to Mr. Shahani, by this amendment the. Petitioner - extended their membership to other establishment including the Respondents, therefore, the petitioner was entitled to carry out the work for all the Respondents Mr. Shahani referred to the record of the Respondent No,l.
9. Mr. Hamayun, submitted that this Petition is not maintainable and further submitted that through this Petition the Petitioners are aiming at the declaration that they are Collective Bargaining Agent by theRespondents Nos.2 to 5 and all other establishments mentioned in Annexure-G to the C.P.
No,206 of 2002. He further contended that the Petitioner and the Respondents Nos.2 to 5 have, no employer and employee relationship. He relied upon para. (3), (9) and (11) of the counter affidavit filed by the Petitioner in C.P. No,206 of 2002. He urged that the Respondent No,1 passed the order on the basis of the material available on his record and thus complied with the order dated 1-4-2002 passed in C.P. No,83 of 2003. He referred to page (3) of the impugned order and submitted that it has discussed and determined the status of the Petitioner regarding its registration as well as certification of the CBA so also the status of the employer for which it was actually found registered and declared as CBA. He contended that the points which are being agitated here by the Petitioner have already been adjudicated in C.P. No,206 of 2002 and C.P. No,83/03 and cannot be agitated once again.
10. Mr. Ghanghro for Respondent No,1 submitted that the Petitioners were registered in 1973 for sixteen (16) Jamadars. On 27-2-1983 on the basis of the application dated 9-7-1980 filed by the Petitioner they were declared as CBA for sixteen (16) Jamadars.
11. Mr. Ghanghro further submitted that the union could only be certified as a CBA of an establishment for which it was registered and no one else. He referred to Sections 5,6 and 22 of the I.R.O.
1969. He further urged that the Petitioner could have not amended their constitution extending their membership to the establishments beyond sixteen (16) Jamadars without first seeking registration to that effect under sections 5 and 6 ibid.
12. I have considered submission of the Counsel and also Mr. Ghanghro for the Respondent No,1. I also examined the earlier two orders passed by this Court and the impugned order. An examination of the impugned orders reveals that the Respondent No,1 after perusal of the record, available before him came to the conclusion that the Petitioner was registered only for sixteen (16)
Jamadars as per the list provided by them at the time of registration in 1973. Subsequently they applied for certifications as CBA of the said sixteen (16) Jamadars which was allowed by order dated 27-2-1983. In spite repeated observations by the Court, Mr. Shahani has not been able to bring on record to satisfy this Court that while submitting the amended constitution in 1995 before the Respondent No,1 the Petitioners had annexed a list of establishments incorporating the names of the present Respondents. Mr. Shahani's main contention was that the Registrar has accepted the amendment vide letter dated 9-10-1995, therefore, the Petitioner is legally entitled to work for the Respondent as well. As observed above, the list of employer's said to have been approved by the Respondent No,1 through his letter of 9-10-1995 is not available on record therefore, it cannot be determined as who were those listed establishments in addition to the sixteen (16)Jamadars.
13. The amendment, if any, of the constitution is the internal working of the Petitioners and it cannot bypass the provisions of law. Therefore, even if the Petitioners have annexed with their application while seeking approval of amendment in their constitution, the list of the additional establishments, the Respondent No,1 was not empowered to approve or accept the same in the absence of Petitioner's registration to that effect. In this regard reference is made to Sections 5,6 and 22 of the I.R.O.
1969. In case the Petitioner wanted themselves fo be declared as a CBA for the additional establishment it was incumbent upon them to first get themselves registered for those establishments and thereafter could have sought certification of CBA.
14. In this case as observed above, there is nothing on record from the side of the Petitioner to establish that at any time such a registration was applied for by them or they were declared as a CBA in respect of Respondent establishment. In case the Petitioners entered into any agreement/settlement with any establishment, it will not be binding on the Respondent No,1 and under law they could not be treated as registered Trade Union and the CBA for those establishment.
15. In the above circumstances, I find that the Respondent rightly on the record available before him disposed off the application of the Petitioner in accordance with the judgment by this Court and no exception can be taken that effect.
16. This is writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution and I do not find any lawful ground for interference in the impugned order. The Petitioner is therefore, dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.