1. DECISION MD. NURUL ISLAM KHAN (CHAIRMAN). This is an applica--tion under section 8(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance, by the first party Union by way of an appeal against a decision of an omission of a decision, which the Registrar of Trade Unions was statutorily supposed to pass in due course.
2. The case of the first party is that they have formed a Trade Union of Class III and Class 1V employees including Work---Charge employees who are directly or indirectly engaged under the Chief Engineer of Roads and Highways and Buildings Directorate of the Government of East Pakistan. The Union came into existence on 4-2-1970. The petitioner applied with all particulars to the Registrar of Trade Unions on 12-2-1970 for registration of the Union under section 8 of the Ordinance. Though the Registrar of Trade Union was bound to give a decision in this case within 60 days, he did nothing of the sort even after a lapse of this period. Hence this application for directing the Registrar of Trade Unions to pass necessary orders under section 8(3) of the Ordinance.
3. The second party respondent entered into appearance and filed a letter by the Registrar of Trade Unions in which it was stated that the scope of the membership of the Union has been extended to all Class III and Class IV employees under the Chief Engineer of Roads and Highways and Buildings Directorate and as they are two separate establishments, the Union, according to the provisions of the Ordinance, has been irregularly constituted and thus, it has become invalid in the eye of law under section 7(d). It was further submitted that as they are Government workers, they could not form a Union as being in the service of the Administration of the State under section 1(3). So the appeal of the first party should, be dismissed.
4. Point for determination in the present case is whether the first party is entitled to receive any order directing the Registrar of Trade Unions to accord registration to the first party Union.
5. FINDINGS AND DECISION The first party has examined two witnesses to show that in similar circumstances workmen of similar categories and of same nature of work of the Central Government have been allowed to form Trade Union and their Union has been registered. P. W. 1, Mr. A. R. Sonnamat who is the President of the Pakistan P. W. D. Workers' Union deposed that his Union having been formed in 1955 has been allowed to continue as a registered Trade Union even after the promulgation of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and that their constitution has been amended in consonance with the letter and spirit of the Ordinance and has been later recognised as -such by the Registrar of Trade Unions in August 1970. The other party submitted that in fact, the Union has not been registered but under the protective clause of section 67(2)(a) all such registered Union under the previous Acts had to be deemed as having been registered even under the Ordinance. So it has to be admitted that Pak. P. W. D. Union of P. W. 1 continued as registered Trade Union and its constitution has been amended in pursuance of the provisions of the Ordinance. It has been submitted by P_ W. 2 that his Union, included the Work-Charge and other Class III and Class IV employees of the two Directorates under .the two Chief Engineers and that these workers are performing works which could have been performed by any private agency working in the capacity of industries. They are not associated with the administration of the State since they do not incorporate in their membership, employees who are working under the Secretariat of the Government. 1t appears to us that the first party has committed a gross irregularity as their membership extends to two different establishments, which, according to the provision of the 1. R.
6. O. is invalid. There A cannot be a Trade Union comprising two establishments, In that sense, the objection given by the second party has been valid. But it must be pointed out that the second party should have pointed out this defect in the constitution of the first party within first 15 days and so there were laches in this respect.
7. The next point argued is that the C & B workers or the workers working under the Roads and Highways Directorate are Government servants and they are employed in the administration of the State, and as such under section 1(3) they could not be treated as workman for the purpose of forming a Trade Union under the Ordinance. It has been argued by the learned counsel of the first party that as the work which is being done by these workmen forming the first party Trade Union is not inalienable function of the State which should be called the 'Administration of the State. They are no better or no worse than the employees of the private agencies who can also perform the same function such as in the present case, the construction of building, maintenance of workshop, construction of bridges, roads, etc. As days pass by, Government is interfering more and more in the field of private activities and thus as the processes of nationalisation of industries goes on, Government would take into its fold more and more functions which have been performed by private agencies. There is no doubt that in the present matter the Government is competing side by side with the private agency in this kind of work as is being done by the second party establishment. So they do not stand in a better footing and there would be an unnecessary discrimination if the B definition of the 'Administration of State' is extended to these workers only because they are working under the different employers such as the Government. In that view we must hold that these workers are not associated with the 'Administration of the State' since their functions have nothing to do with the inalienable function of the State which is termed as 'Administration of the State. Very discretely enough the first party Trade Union has not embraced within its compass the workers who are engaged in policy-making matters working in the Secretariat and in that they have recognised the suzerainty of the Government and of the State in that in taking decision in building and other associated activities as 'is being done by the second party establishment. Without elaborating this point further we may hold that these .workmen being engaged in field services like any other workmen who could perform this work under any private agency should be termed as workmen and they have the right to form a Trade Union in consonance with provisions of law.
8. I have already pointed out that the construction of the appellant Trade Union is irregular and invalid according to law since the membership extends to two establishments. They should rectify this mistake. Only after rectification of this fundamental mistake they can approach the authority for registration of their Union. With this observation we dismiss this appeal on contest.
9. I have consulted the written opinion of the Members in this connection.