ZAHOOR AHMED MENGAL. MEMBER.---1 Mr. Shahid Javed, Advocate learned counsel for the appellant and petitioner filed two matters as Revision Petition No,02/2017 under section 115, C.P.C. read with section 55 of the BIRA, 2010 and Appeal No, 06/2017 under section 13 read with section 55 of BIRA, 2010 against the order dated 16-03-2017. I will dispose of both the Revision No, 2/2017 and Appeal No,06/2017 by this common judgment.
Facts of Appeal:
2. Precise facts of the appeal are that the respondent No, 1 filed an application before Labour Court-I Quetta alleging therein that there exists two Unions in Irrigation Department i,e, Balochistan Irrigation Employees Union and Balochistan Mutahida Canal Union. In the year 2016, Election was held wherein the respondent No,1 's Union become successful, as such appellant approached before Trial Court by challenging the sanctity of respondent No,1 's union as CBA. The respondent No,1 contested the same with averments that inquiry has already been initiated by the respondent No,2 against the appellant's so-called Union, whereof the Learned Trial Court dismissed Petition and directed the respondent No,2 to complete the Inquiry in shortest time, but the respondent No,2 kept inquiry pending for long, because the inquiry conducted by his appointed officer was against the appellant's union, at last the respondent No,2 Saeed Sarpara with mala fide intention and gaining illegal gratifications issued Registration Certificate in favour of appellant's Union.
Facts of Revision petition:
3. Precise facts of the Revision petition are that the respondent No,1 filed an application before Labour Court-I Quetta alleging therein that 'Balochistan Irrigation Employees Union CBA' and 'Balochistan Irrigation Muttahida Canal Workers Union Quetta' already exists in Irrigation Department Balochistan, Quetta, but two persons/Officials retired on 17-01-2014 and 31-01-2016 respectively who are not falling under definition of Worker and workman as provided under section 2(dd) of BIRA, 2010 cannot hold the Office of Union as office bearers, but they succeeded to register their union illegally.
Furthermore appellant's Union has no required strength i,e, 1/5th of total workers 4000. The appellant along with vice president of respondent No,2's Union submitted an application before respondent No,3 for registration of third Union, however, respondent No,3 i,e, Director Labour Welfare/Registrar Trade Union appointed Research Officer to conduct inquiry either appellant's Union fulfill the criteria for registration of third Union.
The Inquiry Officer vide inquiry report dated 28-04-2016 submitted to respondent No,3 to reject the application of appellant for registration of third Union.
Thereafter, vide notification dated 28-11-2016, the respondent No,3 was transferred and directed to relinquish the charge of the post of Director Labour Welfare/RTU with immediate effect, but the respondent No, 3 with all mala fide issued Registration to appellant vide order dated 06-12-2016. In this regard, respondent No, 1 submitted an application to respondent No, 3, but all in vain.
Being aggrieved the respondent No,1 (in Appeal No,06/2017) filed grievance application and respondent No,1 (in Revision Petition No,02/2017) filed appeal before Labour Court-I Quetta which was accepted by the Trial Court vide common judgment dated 16-03-2017.
Being aggrieved from the same Judgment, the appellant filed instant appeal and Revision petition before this Court.
4. Mr. Shahid Javed, Advocate learned counsel for the appellant and petitioner argued that the Trial Court wrongly accepted the Case No,37/2016 and Appeal No,01/2017 without framing any issue and giving opportunity of leading evidence which is against the norms of natural justice as it was the basic right of the appellant to have been given ample opportunity of leading evidence to prove their instance as narrated in their case and appeal but the order was passed in a hasty manner which caused great prejudice to the appellant and petitioner.
5. On the other hand Mr. Abdul Zahir Kakar, Advocate learned counsel for the respondent No,1 in Labour Appeal No,06/2017 and respondents Nos,1 and 2 in Revision Petition No,20/2017 opposed the Revision petition and appeal.
He further urged that the Learned Trial Court after hearing the parties and examination of the available record rightly accepted the application/appeal and appeal/revision as the respondent No,2 acted illegally and ignored the law by giving registration certificate to the petitioner/appellant.
He further urged that the judgment passed by the Learned Trial Court do not suffer from any illegality or irregularity, therefore, the same is liable to be upheld.
6. Record of the case and order of the Trial Court thoroughly perused. It appears that the petitioner/appellant applied for the registration of third Union as there already exists two registered Unions. Section 6(2)(b) of BIRA, 2010 clearly says that when there are two or more registered Union in the establishment or group of establishments or industry with which the trade union is connected, then one fifth membership of the total number of workmen employed in such establishment, group of establishments or industry, as the case may be is mandatory.
7. The Director Labour Welfare/Registrar Trade Union violated the prescribed law as there was no one-fifth membership available to the appellant/petitioner to be registered as (CBA) as the total strength of the membership of the workers is about 4,000 (four thousand).
The appellant/petitioner failed to fulfill the numeric strength required for registration of Union. On the other hand inquiry conducted by the research officer dated 28-04-2016 also favours the stance of the respondents.
The contention of the appellant/petitioner as well as the act of the respondent No,2 have no sport from the record, therefore, in presence of clear law, when the fate of the point related to specific section is there, then there is no need to further inquiry or leading of any evidence.
It is also important that the respondent No, 2 has already cancelled the registration of the appellant/petitioner soon after the announcement of Trial Court's judgment dated 16-03-2016, therefore, both the appeal and revision become infractuous.
8. The Learned Trial Court rightly reached at the conclusion that the petitioner/appellant was wrongly registered by the respondent No,2 against the clear directions of the law.
9. The appellant/petitioner failed to point out any illegality or irregularity or misreading or non- reading in the judgment impugned herein dated 16-03-2017 passed by the Learned Trial Court needs no interference by this Tribunal hence the same is upheld. Accordingly the appeal and revision file by the appellant and petitioner is hereby dismissed.
10. The parties are left to bear their own cost.
11. The copy of judgment along with original record of Trial Court be sent to Trial Court. Case after completion be consigned to record.
12. Given under my hand and seal of the Court on 29th August, 2017.