DECISION This is an Appeal under section 37(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, hereinafter called the Ordinance, against an Award dated the 17th of October 1970. The impugned Award was given by the Sind Labour Court No. 1, Karachi and arises in the following circumstances. The Workmen represented by the Simplex Rubber Manufacturers Employees' Union Karachi gave notice on 21st of January 1970 under section 26 to the Management. The Collective Bargaining proceedings under section 26 of the Ordinance having failed the Collective Bargaining Agent on 9th of February 1970 gave a notice of 21 days to the Management for strike. After the expiry of the notice period the Workers went on strike on 3rd of March 1970. The Provincial Government made a Reference to the Labour Court under section 32 of the Ordinance on 15th of April 1970. The Provincial Government also prohibited the strike on the 15th of April 1970.
2. Messrs Simplex Rubber Manufacturers Limited, hereinafter called the Management, was the only party to the Reference. The Management took a preliminary objection that the appellant Union was not the Collective Bargaining Agent inasmuch as on the 6th of March 1970, the Registrar of Trade Unions W registered Simplex Rubber Workers and Staff Union as a Trade Union. It is noteworthy that the appellant and the Management did not lead any evidence. The learned Labour Court gave the Award on the facts admitted by the parties as already given.
3. The learned Court considered the scope of section 43 of the Ordinance that no Industrial Dispute shall be deemed to exist unless it has been raised by a Collective Bargaining Agent. The learned Court held that their being a rival Union and the Registrar having not determined by refrendum as to which of the two Unions was to be considered as Collective Bargaining Agent the dispute cannot be said to have been raised by the appellant Union and therefore the reference was rejected.
4. The short point for consideration is as to whether on the record the appellant Union can be said to be a Collective Bargaining Agent. There are only two sections of the Ordinance that require consideration namely, section 22 and section 52. The relevant provisions of section 22, which require consideration are subsections (1) and (2). They read as under :- "(1) Where there is only one registered Trade Union in an establishment or industrial unit, or only one federation in the whole industry in a province such registered Trade Union or federation shall be deemed to be the collective bargaining agent for such establishment or industrial unit, or for such whole industry as the case may be.
(2) In case there are more than one registered Trade Unions in an establishment or more than one federation in a whole industry, the Registrar shall, within one month from the date of receipt of a written request in that behalf, hold a secret ballot to determine the representation of each registered Trade Union in the establishment or industrial unit concerned, or each federation within the whole industry in that province concerned."
There is no doubt that under subsection (1) of section 22 the appellant was a Collective Bargaining Agent up to the 3rd of March 1970, when the workers of the Union went on strike. The other Union was registered on the 6th of March 1970. The mere fact that another Registered Trade Union came into being will not have the effect of declaring it as the Bargaining Agent. It is noteworthy that till today the other Trade Union though registered as long ago as 6th of March 1970, did not apply to the Labour Court to be made a party or to the Registrar for referendum. It appears to me as the name of the other Union (Simplex Rubber Workers and Staff Union) would suggest that it is a Pocket Union. Perhaps the Union is composed of more of the staff people than of the workers. Another section' which is important for consideration is section 52 of the Ordinance. It reads as under :- "Any act or function which is by this Ordinance required to be performed by or has been conferred upon a collective bargaining agent may, until a collective bargaining agent has been ascertained under the provisions of this Ordinance be performed by a registered Trade Union which has been recognised by the employer or employers."
It is clear from the above section that unless a Collective Bargaining Agent is declared by the Registrar a registered Trade Union which has been recognised by the employed will perform all the functions under the Ordinance. Mr. Shad, the learned Representative for the Management very strongly contended that the appellant Union has not been recognised by the employer. There is nothing on the record before me to suggest that the appellant Union has not -been recognised by the employer. Under the Ordinance no mode has been prescribed for recognition. The word "Recognition" has to be given a literal and liberal interpretation. Recognition in Chambers 20th Century Dictionary means act of recognising .. . . . . state of being recognised . . . . . acknowledgment . . . . . . . acknowledg--ment of status. In the absence of any rule made under the Ordinance laying down the procedure for recognition by the employer of the status of a Trade Union, it would be sufficient compliance of section 52 of the Ordinance if the employer accept 4 the status of the Union either explicitly or impliedly. Mere denial by the employer that it does not recognize a registered Trade Union Without any reason is not sufficient. On the face of it, if a Trade Union had been registered by the Registrar it would be prima facie evidence that the Union has complied with all the requirements of the Ordinance. The Registrar under section of the Ordinance would register a Trade Union only if it is satisfied that it has complied with all the requirements of the Ordinance.
Male fide or arbitrary denial of recognition by the employer could have no existence in law.
5. The admitted position is that the employer as well as the appellant Union appeared before the Conciliation Officer. The status of the appellant Union was not challenged before the Conciliation Officer. It is noteworthy that there is nothing on the record to show that the Management ever challenged the status of the Union before the learned Labour Court. If the Management did not recognize the appellant Trade Union, it should have so alleged before the Court and given its reasons therefore. In these circumstances, I have come to the conclusion that the Management impliedly recognized the appellant Union as a registered Trade Union. I would, therefore, set aside the order of the learned Court. The Reference to be disposed of in accordance with law.