' SHAHID ANWAR BAJWA, J.---With the consent of learned counsel for the parties this Constitution petition was finally heard at Katcha Peshi stage and is being decided accordingly.
2. Respondent No, 3 applied for registration as Industry-wise Trade Union with National Industrial Relations Commission (N.I.R.C.) and it was duly registered as Industry-wise Trade Union by the N.I.R.C. The petitioner is also a Trade Union registered' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 but since its membership is confined to the Province of Balochistan only its registration as Trade Union for Province of Balochistan by the Provincial Registrar, letter dated 9.10.2007. To respondent No, 2 and it was stated in that letter that respondent No, 3 has been registered on the basis of fabricated documents and in violation of provision contained in Sections 5, 6 and 7 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. It was further stated that it was a requirement under Section 6(iv)(b) of the Ordinance of 1969 that an applicant Trade Union must disclose name of other Trade. Unions registered in respect of the Establishment or Group of Establishments or Industry and respondent No, 3 did not so disclose. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that there are other 'violations committed while granting registration to respondent No, 3 Trade Union which were pointed out and respondent No, 2 has not finally decided and determined the position and status of respondent No, 3 and has not disposed of letter dated 9.10.2007 submitted by the petitioner to respondent No, 7.
3. An application for determination of Collective Bargaining Unit under Section 22-EE filed by respondent 'No, 3 and that application was allowed by the Chairman N.I.R.C. Vide order dated 4.9.2007. Operative part of the order reads as under:-- "In view of what has been discussed above, I determine M/s. Balochistan Engineering Works Limited as one Collective Bargaining Unit for a period of four years. The Balochistan Engineering Works Labour Union (Respondent No, 6) is directed to amend its constitution in, conformity with the one Collective Bargaining Unit within a period of one month and in case of failure, it shall be presumed that the said union ceased to exist."
'4. Although, present petitioner was not a party in the proceedings before the Single Bench of N.I.R.C., the petition r filed appeal under Section 22-D of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
That appeal was dismissed by the Full Be eh vide order dated 22.1.2008 and it upheld the order passed by the learned Single Bench. The order dated 22.1.2008 has been challenged and impugned in this petition and the following prayers have been made:-
(a) QUASH THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 4.9.2007 Ann. A/1, passed by Respondent No, 2 in case No, 19(12)2007; and also judgment dated 22.'1.2008 Ann. A/2 passed by Respondent No, 1, in Appeal No, 12(24)2007;
(b) DECLARE that the Impugned Orders/Judgments Ann. A/1 and A/2, are un-lawful, without jurisdiction, without lawful authority against natural justice and of no legal effect;
(c) GRANT such other relief/reliefs as may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that it was not avai able to the N.I.R.C. To decide the question regarding determination of Collective Bargaining Units without deciding question of cancellation of registration of Trade Union. The petition not mad and Nat made in counsel evidence Learned Corporate was a Trade Union in the Establishment and it was a party. He stated that Balochistan is a tribal society re of work for the establishments which have been o one Collective Bargaining Unit is different. Learned contended that learned Single Member did not record before coming to the conclusions that he did. Counsel in regards relied upon Rice Export ion Labour Union v. Full Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission and 6 others (1992 PLC 125) and an unreported judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Rice Export Corporation Employees United Front v. Full Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission and others (Civil Appeal No, 202- K of 1991) decided on December 8, 1991. Learned counsel further submitted that mere the name Collective Bargaining Units can be determined in an establishment and in this regard he relied upon Employees Union F:F.C. Ltd. Fauji Fertilizer's (1988 PLC 894). Learned. Counsel further submitted that petitioner after order was passed by the N.I.R.C. Changed its constitution and applied for registration before N.I.R.C. But' such registration application is still pending.
6. Mr. Mehmood Abdul Ghani learned counsel for respondent No: 4 submitted the main product manufactured by the factory of respondent company is motorcycle. Initially separate companies were incorporated in respect of making various parts of motorcycles and names of some of these companies were Balochistan Engineering Works Ltd:, Gear Hobbing Ltd. And others. Subsequently, it was found that the separate company's was not economical and companies were merged after obtaining judicial order from this Court and the merged company were merged after obtaining judicial order from this Court and the merged company continued with name of Balochistan Engineering Works Ltd. Regarding question that petitioner was not made a party under Section 22- EE of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, learned counsel pointed out Para 7 of the petition where it is stated that after order was passed by the Single Bench it was present petitioner which filed appeal before the Full 'Bench of N.I.R.C. Therefore, since the order of Single Bench merged in order of the Full Bench petitioner cannot claim that he was not heard. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner having itself amended its constitution in compliance with order passed by the Single Bench, it cannot now claim that order_ is illegal because doing so would amount to approbating and reprobating at the same time. Since the petitioner does not have any member outside the Province of Balochistan it is not entitled to be registered as Industry-wise Trade Union and the order of Single Bench which has been upheld must be read subject to provisions contained in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. It is true that no evidence was recorded by the Single Member of N.I.R.C. But there is no provision laid down in section 22EE of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 prescribing a manner in which enquiry is to be conducted by the Commission while deciding application under Section 22-EE. Learned counsel submitted that it is not essential that evidence be recorded. He relied upon Employees Union FFC Limited Fauji Fertilizer v. Workers Union, FFC Limited, Goth Machhi Rahim Yar Khan (NLR 1988 TD 488). Learned counsel submitted that except head office of respondent No, factories of the respondent and Trade Union are located in the Province of Balochistan. Petitioner is registered by Provincial Registrar of Balochistan, order has been passed by N I.R.C. At Islamabad and, therefore this Court does not have territorial jurisdiction.
7. Mr. Muhammad Rafiq Malik learned counsel for respondent No, 3 supported the arguments of Mr. Mehmood Abdul Ghani.
8. Mr. Mohammad Shafiq Qureshi learned counsel for petitioner exercising his right of rebuttal submitted that Collective Bargaining unit has been determined in respect of Balochistan Engineering Works Limited which has an office in Karachi and factories in HUB and Collective Bargaining Unit has been determined in respect of all offices and branches,. Of respondent No, 3.
He referred to 'Para 2 of the affidavit submitted in support of stay application where it is stated as under:-- "That I say I and others complied with the orders of Full Bench, by amending the union's constitution, within two months and also complied/ removed the objections. In the two months period, but the respondent No, 1 did not Register as Industry-wise Trade Union. I say I and others had complied with the Ann.A/2, Full Bench Judgment without prejudice to my rights to claim FOUR CBUs. For each factory separately, as the nature of worker, terms of employment, factory registration, location are at different places. I say the appointment of one CBU, without recording evidence and giving chance to defend, is in violation of law and against natural justice. I and others were prejudiced seriously."
9. He further submitted that although CBU 'was determined as long ago as on 4.9.2007 but referendum has not yet been held.
10. We have considered submissions_ made by the learned counsel and Have also gone through record.
11. First question to be decided is whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction or not to entertain this petition. It is contended by the counsel for the respondents that all the factories are located in the Province of Balochistan and the petitioner No, 1 is a registered trade union registered by the Registrar of Trade Unions of Balochistan. Impugned order passed at the Full Bench of N.I.R.C. As well as order by the Single Bench of N.I.R.C. Has been passed at Islamabad. Learned counsel contended that in view of such petition this Court having territorial jurisdiction within the Province of Sindh does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon grievance of the petitioners. Conversely, it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Collective Bargaining Unit has been determined in respect of offices and branches of Balochistan Engineering Works Ltd. And that company has office in Karachi where workmen employed and, therefore, this Court has territorial jurisdiction.
Contention of Mr. Shafiq Qureshi learned counsel for petitioners must be accepted not only for the reason that he has advocated but also for the reason that Collective Bargaining Unit has been determined and it is contended by the counsel that only those trade unions can be registered by NJ.R.C. Which have membership in the Collective Bargaining Unit and the CBU straddles across more than one Provinces. All the parties are at one that two Provinces where Balochistan Engineering Works Ltd. Employs workmen are Provinces of Sindh and Balochistan. Therefore, order passed by the Single Bench and upheld by the Full Bench is completely and fully effective in the Province of Sindh and, therefore, this Court has jurisdiction to scrutinize whether order passed is with lawful authority or not aid whether it is in accordance with the law or not.
12. First contention of Mr. Shang Qureshi was that since he has challenged the application for registration of the respondent No,
3. The N.I.R.C. Should not have decided the application under Section 22-EE without first ceciding question of legality or otherwise of the regulation of respondent No,
3. Argument must be repelled. Firsty because once a trade union has been registered it attains status of a legal person in terms of Section 14 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and as long as its. Registration is not cancelled by the authority empowered under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 to cancel registration of trade unions, such registered trade union can work as trade union and exercise all the, legal rights and is encumbered with all the legal obligations of a trade union. Procedure for cancellation has been prescribed in Section 10 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and is fully applicable to Industry-wise trade union in terms of Section 22-B of- the Ordinance. Therefore, the fact that registration of respondent No, 3had been challenged by the petitioners on the grounds, howsoever fallow or firm these grounds-may be, cannot have effect of debarring respondent No, 3 from acting as a trade pion and such right to act as trade union includes fipt to file an application for determination of Collective Bargaining Unit under Section 22- EE
13. Mr. Shafiq Qureshi next contended that Single Bench of N.I.R.C. Did not record evidence before coming to the conclusion that one Collective Bargaining Unit be created.
' He relied upon Rice Export Corporation's case (supra): The facts of that matter were that petitioner as well two of the respondents were trade unions for employees of Rice Export Corporation at Karachi (out of total 2100 workers it employed 2000 at Karachi). Petitioner union was elected as CBA. One of the respondents got itself registered as Industry-wise Trade Union with N.I.R.C. And it was then certified as CBA by the N.I.R.C. Petitioner union challenged such CPA status. By consent it was declared as null and void by this Court and matter was remanded to N.I.R.C. A Full Bench of N.I.R.C. By majority declared that CBA certificate issued to legally registered trade union within a province became ineffective upon registration of an Industry-wise Trade Union and also while certifying CBA RITU will look at only trade unions registered by it and decide the question of determination of CBA without giving notice to provincially registered trade unions. High Court held that powers of registration of Provincial Registrar and N.I.R.C. Exist independently of each other and none of them is capable to rendering :he other as redundant and therefore, CBA status of a provincially registered trade union cannot be deemed to have come to an end upon registration of Industry-wise Trade Union by N.I.R.C. Therefore such provincially certified CBA shall enjoy status of CBA for statutory period of two years. High Court held that N.I.R.C. Must first determines Collective Bargaining Unit under section 22EE. Matter was taken to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court firstly held as finder: - "It may also be pointed out that subsection (3) of Section 22-EE lays down the after the certification of a collective bargaining unit, no trade union shall be registered in respect of that union except for the whole of such unit and no certification or proceeding for determination of collective bargaining agent under Section 22 shall take place for a part of collective bargaining unit or group of collective bargaining units. It may further be pointed out that sub-section (4) thereof lays down that an order of the N.I.R.C. Under this Section shall take effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Ordinance."
14. Thereafter the Honourable Supreme Court upheld the conclusions recorded by the High Court.
Mr. Shafiq Qureshi refer red to the case of Employees Union FFC Limited Fauji Fertilizer's (supra) this is a judgment by Full Bench of N.I.R.C. In respect of scope of enquiry contemplated under section 22EE. It was held as under:-- "The next contention was that the Single Bench had reached its finding without holding an inquiry as required by section 22-EE of the I.R.O. Ve see no force in this contention, for we find I rom the impugned order that the material points raised and facts brought out before the Bench had been duly considered and discussed before reaching its decision. All that section 22-EE requires is that the Commission should reach its satisfaction as to the necessity and feasibility for determining one or more C.B.Us., "after holding such enquiry, as .It deems fit". The scope of the enquiry had come up for discussion before a Full Bench of this Commission in Railway Mazdoor Union case 1976 PLC 585 in which it had been observed: "We find that the words 'after holding such inquiry as it deems fit' have been used in section 22-EE, in contradistinction to the different words used in some other sections e.g., section 36,. Requiring a more elaborate inquiry for some other classes of cases. They, therefore, bring to mind the observation in Judicial Review of Administrative Authority, by S.A. De Smith (Second Edition), pp. 17 and 177, that 'where legislation expressly' requires notice and hearing for 'certain purposes but imposes no procedural requirements for other purpose', it excludes by implication the application of the principle of natural justice Audi alteram partem (no person should be condemned unheard).
Neither I.R.O. Nor the Regulations optionally made by the Commission under section 22F of the Ordinance having prescribed any procedure for such proceedings, the power of the learned Chairman to evolve his own procedure was not lesser than that of an arbitrator.
' In the present case, the appellant/applicant remained associated with all the proceedings of the learned Chairman and had full opportunity to volunteer such further evidence as he liked. In fact, however, he is not shown by the records to have offered to file either replication, or an affidavit or any interlocutory application. Had he wished to produce any evidence which the learned Chairman was disinclined to receive, he could have brought this fact on the record through an application.
He, however, did not choose to do so. He, therefore, is estoppel by his conduct from saying at this stage that the inquiry as held by the learned Chairman and participated in by himself without objection was inadequate...
' The point had again come up before a Full Bench in Appeal No, 12(54) of 1986, decided on 3.2.1987 and after a discussion of the interpretation of similar expression in other laws it was held that "the enquiry contemplated in section 22-EE is not to be .Equated with a trial involving framing of issues and recording of evidence. Calling the parties concerned. Ascertaining their views for or against the proposal. Hearing and considering their arguments before taking the decision. Does constitute an enquiry."
15. Mr. Mehmood Abdul Ghani learned counsel for respondent No, 4 also relied upon Employees Union FFC Limited Fauji Fertilizer's case (supra). The Section 22EE of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 which was incorporated in the Ordinance for the first time through Act XVI of 1975 introduced and created the concept, institution and mechanism of Collective Bargaining Unit, This Section is in the following words:-- 22-EE. Determination etc., of collective Bargaining Where the Commission, on an application made in this behalf, by a trade union of workmen or a federation of such trade unions, or on a reference made. By the Federal Government, after holding such inquiry as it deems fif, is satisfied that for safeguarding the interest of the workmen employed in an establishment or group of establishments belonging to the same employer and the same industry, in relation to collective bargaining. It is necessary, just and feasible to determine one or more collective bargaining units of such workmen in such establishment or group. It may, having regard to the distribution of workers, existing boundaries of the components of such establishment or group, facilities of communication, general convenience, sameness or similarity of economic activity and other cognate factors,--
(a) determine and certify one or more collective bargaining units in such establishment or group;
(b) specify the modifications which, in consequence of the decision under this section, will take effect in regard to the registration of the trade unions and federations of trade unions affected by such decision and certification of . Collective bargaining agent among such unions and federations, nomination or election of shop stewards, and workers' representatives for participation in the management of the factories, if affected by such decision;
(c) specify the date or dates from, and the period for which, all or any of such changes shall take effect: ' Provided - - - Provided -- -
(d) take such measures or issue 'such directions to the Registrar as may be necessary to give effect to such modification; and
(e) determine and certify a collective bargaining agent for each such unit in accordance with section 22, insofar as applicable and with the necessary' modifications, if such a unit relates to more than one Province, or direct the Registrar to take such action, if such a unit relates to only one Province.
(2) Where the Commission issues any directions to the Registrar under this section, the Registrar shall comply with them within such period as the Commission may from time to time determine.
(3) After the certification of a collective bargaining unit, 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 collective bargaining agent under section 22 shall take place for a poet of collective unit or a bargaining group of Collective bargaining units.
(4) An order of the Commission under this section shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Ordinance."
16. A reading of the above Section indicates that power has been conferred upon the N.I.R.C. To determine one or more Collective Bargaining Units of workmen. Thus, N.I.R.C. Cannot only combine a number of establishments of the same employer into one Collective Bargaining Unit but it can also bifurcate and trifurcate one establishment into number of separate collective bargaining units. Some guidelines have provided as to the manner for determining a Collective Bargaining Unit. Firstly safeguarding of interest of the workers in relation to Collective Bargaining. Thus, objective laid down behind creation of a Collective Bargaining Unit is that interest of the workers must be further protected and safeguarded. Thereafter discretion has been given to the Commission to conduct such enquiry as it deems fit. No outlines of enquiry or procedure for enquiry has been laid down by the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 or even by judicial dicta by superior judiciary. Matter has been left to the discretion of the Bench who deals with an application for determination of Collective Bargaining Unit. However, one thing is very clear. It is not a requirement of law that evidence be recorded like it is recorded in a judicial trial. Therefore, it will have to- be seen in the context of facts, a particular situation and particular case whether evidence was required or not. What is needed is requirement of satisfaction of the Bench deciding an application for .Collective Bargaining Unit. Satisfaction is state- of mind which is an objective assessm ent arrived at by applying mind to the material before the Bench. Some of the things which may be considered by the while deciding application under Section 22-EE is distribution of workers. Existing boundaries of the components of such establishments or group. Facilities of communication; general convenience or the similarity of economic activity and other cognate factors. Section 22-EE is neither determinative nor exhaustive in laying down the factors.' It has been again left to the discretion, rather judicial discretion of the bench deciding the application as to which set of factors should be taken into consideration and what due weight is to be assigned to which factor. Therefore. Contention of Mr. Shatiq Qureshi that mere fact evidence was not recorded by the Single Bench is alone sufficient to set aside orders of the two Courts below because recording of evidence is not a requirement of Section 22-EEof the Industrial Relations Ordinance.
1969.
17. Mr. Mehmood Abdul Ghani has pointed out that four separate factories were established for making various parts for motorcycles. Later on after permission from this Court in accordance with the provision of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 was obtained the four companies were merged into one and respondent No, 3 is legal entity who owns all the four factories and has its head office at Karachi. End product is motorcycles. Therefore, it is clear to us that as far as economic activity is concerned, there is unity in the activity of the four establishments; a common thread, a la Michael Porter, runs, through them Mr. Qureshi stated that the society is a tribal one in HUB and therefore, four separate CBAs be allowed to be continued. No material has been placed on record or filed before or before this Court for arriving at the conclusion that activity in these four factories were different from each other (after all die-casting and machining belong to the same discipline of Mechanical Engineering) or the nature of works or even moreso nature of society in which these factories operated were diametrically opposed to each other so much so that Apples and Oranges could not be mixed with each other. Besides, to these questions of fact two Courts below have applied their judicial minds and have come to the conclusion that it is in the interest of workers that one Collective Bargaining Unit be determined.
18. Mr. Qureshi laid a lot of emphasis on his application/representation before N.I.R.C. For cancellation of registration of respondent No, 3 union. Procedure for cancellation of registration of a trade union registered by the RITU is prescribed in section 10 .Read with 22-B of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. For that reason and also for the reason that many disputed questions of fact are involved including question's whether documents were forged and fabricated or not and whether requirement laid down by various provision of I.R.O. And regulations had been followed, or not. We cannot decide question regarding validity of registration of respondent Not 3. This question must be left for the appropriate Bench of the N.I.R.C. To decide in accordance with law.
19. Mr. Mehmood Abdul Ghani stated that. Petitioner union has complied with orders passed by the N.I.R.C. Determining one Collective Bargaining Unit and has modified its constitution and has applied to the RITU for registration and. Therefore. Having followed steps law prescribed in the impugned orders. It estopped from challenging validity of those orders. We would not go to the extent that Mr. Ghani wants us to because, petitioner might have followed the order passed by the Full Bench by way of abundant caution and, therefore, if petitioner has taken steps in compliance of the orders it cannot be said to be precluded the petitioner from challenging the same orders.
20. Section 22-EE of the Industrial Relations Ordinance has been quoted above. Sub-section (4) of Section 22-EE states that order of Commission passed under this section shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the montrary contained in the Ordinance. Thus, Legislature has lied non-obstante clause. Non-obstante clause used in the provision to indicate that the provision should prevail despite anything to the contrary contained in other provision of legislation and it operates so as have effect of barring to set aside as no longer valid anything contained in the relevant existing law which is inconsistent to the enactment in which non-obstante clause is used.
If any authority is needed, one may refer to Muhammad Duryab Yousuf Qureshi v.. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore and others (PLD 1979 Lahore 406), Muhammad Tayab Khan v: Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore and others (1979 PLC 377), Bashir Ahmed v. Chairman Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore and 3 others (1980 PLC 237) and Pakistan Cycle Industrial Cooperative Society Ltd. v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore and others (1983 PLC 1215).
Therefore, if an order in respect of registration of trade union or amendment in constitutions is passed by N.I.R.0 in exercise of its powers under Section 22-EE, registration is to be governed by that particular aspect of the order and the provision contained in I.R.O. In respect of such registration would be subject to that order for example it is right of workers of each establishment to form trade union. However, when number of establishments are combined to form one C.B.U. Then trade union can be registered only in respect of that C.B.U. And not in respect of each individual establishment in that C.B.U. Thus provisions of Sections 4 to 7 as well as 22 are to be enforced subject to the order determining C.B.U. Similarly, a trade union can be registered for the whole establishment and not for a part of an establishment. But if a part of an establishment' is determined as Collective Bargaining Unit then union can be registered for that part of the establishment. Order passed by the N.I.R.C. Determining Collective, Bargaining Unit has directed the unions "to amend its constitution in conformity with one Collective Bargaining Unit." Therefore, what is required is for the union to amend its constitution make it conform with Collective Bargaining Unit. Besides this restriction no other restriction in respect of extention of membership, etc. Can be placed on this union. Therefore, if petitioner files an application which N.1.R.C. For registration of trade union it will be registration of trade union in respect of Collective Bargaining Unit and the requirements to be complied with will be membership in the C.B.U. And requirement of having ,membership in more than one Provinces would not be applicable to such union. It is registered for that C.B.U. And requirement from industry-wise trade union to have membership in more than one Province would be read subject to order by which C.B.U. Was determined. There is another reason for this conclusion. Union is registered in respect of Collective Bargaining Unit and not in respect of establishment in one or more than one Provinces. Therefore, once Collective Bargaining Unit is determined the union applying for registration in that Collective Bargaining Unit is entitled to be registered in accordance with law by the authority which determined the C.B.U. And its' registration cannot be refused on the ground that though in its constitution its membership extends to the whole C.B.U. But it has membership in one geographical area and not membership in other geographical area. Second mentioned registration restriction would only applicable when Collective Bargaining Unit has not been determined. Mr Justice Shafi-ur-Rehman in the case of KESC Progressive Workers Union through its Chairman v. KESC Labour Union through its General Secretary and others (1991 SCMR 88$) Qbserved that provision of the Industrial Relations Ordinance should not be interpreted in such a way that "Whole scheme become manipulative". Let us assume that there is an organization having 1000 workers in HUB and only 3 workers in Karachi and CBU is determined. Then three workers would be allowed to carry a stranglehold over life of union representing the' one thousand. Union which represents 997 workers in HUB cannot get itself registered because it does not have least one of the workers in Karachi as its member and if an unscrupulous employer (a greed as common as "professional" trade union leaders) wants to destroy union it only has to "persuade" three such workers to become its members and after union is registered ask those workers to resign and go to the N.LR.C. And that union shall cease to exist in line with the principle as upheld by this Court in Democratic Worken Union State Bank of Pakistan v.
Registrar of Industry-wise Trade Unions/Member & another (SBLR 2004 Sindh 37). Therefore, once Collective Bargaining Unit is determined a union which has membership in that unit is entitled to be registered as a trade union in accordance with law and its registration cannot be refused on the, ground that it does not have membership for one and, the other geographical part or the Collective Bargaining Unit.
21. It is stated with due amount of sadness that, although, a Collective Bargaining Unit was determined as long ago as in September 2007 but no referendum has been held so far for determining C.B.A. In this C.B.U. Which practically amounts to depriving workers of their very valuable rights of representation guaranteed to them under the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 as well as Article 17 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
22. As a consequence of the above discussion we dispose of this Constitution petition by passing the following orders:--
(i) Order dated 4.9.2007 passed by the Single Bench of Commission and upheld by Full Bench vide order dated 22.1.2008 is upheld.
(ii) Respondent No, 2 is directed to decide representation filed by the petitioner against registration of respondent No, 3 in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible but preferably within a period of three months.
(iii) Application for. Registration of the Trade Union in consequence of the orders determining Collective Bargaining Unit shall be decided within the period of one month.
(iv) Referendum for determination of the Collective Bargaining Unit' shall be held within a period of four months from the date of this order.
23. This Constitution petition is disposed of in the above terms alongwith listed applications.