' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J-----This judgment shall decide W.P. No, 138/08 and W.P.J. No, 147/08 as common questions are involved and these were ordered to be heard together.
2. In these writ petitions the order passed by the respondent No, 1 on 15.8.2007 registering the respondent No, 2 as a Trade Union and further order passed on 15.9.2007 of holding referendum and ultimately issuance of CBA Certificate to respondent No, 2 on 22.9.2007 have been questioned.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent No, 1 had no jurisdiction to register the respondent No, 2 as a Trade Union as he can exercise jurisdiction only within the District of Jhelum whereas the establishment of the appellant is spread over to -Lahore and Chakwal as well. Further contention is that the order is void inasmuch as the persons who are not workers or workmen have been registered as members of the said Trade Union. He has cited the cases of The Project Manager, Pakistan Mineral Development Corporation and Gola Khel Colleries, District Mianwali v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore and 2 others (1996 PLC 521), Lucky Textile Mills through Managing Partner v. Mazdoor Union of Lucky Textile Mills through General Secretary and 3 others (2007 PLC 366). Ghee Corporation of Pakistan v. Registrar, Trade Unions and another (1991 PLC 207) and All Pakistan Seamen's. Workers Union through General Secretary v. Pakistan Seamen's Union through Secretary and others (2007 PLC 421). According to him, the impugned orders are non-speaking and cannot be sustained particularly when the employer has not been associated with the proceedings and not heard. Learned AAG as also learned counsel for respondent No, 3 support the impugned order. Learned counsel for respondent No, 2, on the other hand, contends that at the time of registration, there were only 25 members including the office bearers and all of them welt employed at Jhelum. Regarding few employees from Chakwal and Lahore it is being stated that the establishment is located at the border of Jhelum and the conveyer belt passes through Chakwal. However, he insists that all the employees are . Employed at Dandot and received their salaries therefrom. Similarly, the service records of a few persons at Lahore is maintained at Jhelum and the salaries disbursed therefrom. Regarding the second contention, he argues that all the persons are workers and it has been held in inter partes proceedings that the persons being stated to be not workers are, in fact, workmen. He vehemently urges that the particulars of all the workers were provided by the petitioner itself. He questions the locus standi of the petitioner to challenge the impugned order with reference to the cases of Essa Cement Industries Workers' Union v. Registrar of Trade Unions, Hyderabad Region, Hyderabad and 4 others (1998 SCM R 1964), Walls Employees Union (Lever Brother Now Uni-Lever Brothers) v. Registrar of Trade Unions, District Kasur and 2 others (2007 PLC 521) and S.A. Brothers (Pvt.) Ltd. Through G.M. v.
Registrar of Trade Unions, Islamabad and another (2002 PLC 102). Supports the impugned orders of the Registrar with reference to the case of Messrs Hakimsons Chemical Industries (Pvt.) Ltd.
Through. General Manager/Factory Manager v. The Registrar of Trade Unions (West), Government of Sindh, Karachi and another (1999 SCM R 234). Also relies on the case of Karachi Shipyard & Engineering Works Limited v. Abdul Ghaffar and 2 others (1993 SCM R 511).
4. I have gone through the files of these two cases, with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties. Having gone through the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the respondent No, 2 particularly the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Essa Cement industries Workers Union, there is no manner of doubt in my mind that an employer would not be having the locus standi to challenge the order passed by the respondent-registrar on the ground of having not been heard or having not been joined in the proceedings.
5. So far as the said contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are concerned, I do find that all the particulars of the workers were provided to the Registrar by the petitioner itself. These particulars not only include the names and designations of the employees but also the details of the Union Fund being recovered from them. I also find that the Registrar had conducted a thorough inquiry which was joined by an officer of the petitioner and after satisfying himself passed the impugned orders.
6. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner draws my attention to the Punjab Industrial Relations Rules, 1977 (Rule 5) to urge that if the members were 25 there could not have been as many as office bearers. I have examined the said Rule 5. It lays down ratio inter se the number of the employees and the maximum number of persons forming executive of the Trade Union.
Learned counsel for the respondent No, 2 explains that all the 25 members were not office bearers and, in fact, only 16 were office bearers. I find that the said Rule 5 does not refer to the members of the Union rather refers to the total number of workers employed in an establishment. It is being stated before the that the total number exceeds 700. This being so, the maximum number of persons forming executive can be upto 18. Nothing, therefore, turns on the said latter contention of the learned counsel as well. Both the writ petitions are accordingly dismissed but without any orders as to costs.