2. The Workers' Union (the petition ` having won in the referendum proceedings under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1-969, held on 1Ith October, 1979, was certified as the Collective Bargaining Agent for the workmen of Karachi Transport Corporation were. f. 11th October, 1979 as per certificate issued by the Registrar of Trade Unions on 17th October, 1979. After nearly two years, the General Secretary of the Workmen Union (respondent No. 4) which is also a registered Union, made an application dated 8th October, 1981, for determination of the Collective. Bargaining Agent under section 22 (2) of the 1969 Ordinance for the workmen of Karachi Transport Corporation. On the basis of this application dated 8th October, 1981, on behalf of the Registrar of Trade Unions, the Labour Officer (Trade Union) East Division, Karachi, addressed a letter dated 19th October, 1981, inter alia, to the petitioner Union,, asking whether it wanted to be contestant in the ballot and was requested to attend the joint meeting on 26th October, 1981, and also was asked for the list of members of the Union. The Employees Union (respondent No. 3) was registered as a Trade Union by the Registrar on 22nd December, 1981, and the Registrar allowed the Workmen Union also to participate in the referendum for the determination of the Collective Bargaining Agent alongwith the Petitioner Union and the Employees Union (respondent No. 3). The Petitioner Union addressed a letter dated 16th March, 1982 to the Registrar informing that the Employees Union had been registered in violation of section 7 (2) (b) of the 1969 Ordinance ; the application for referendum made by the Workmen Union on 8th October, 1981 was made within two year in violation of section 22 (10) of the said Ordinance and therefore, no action could be taken on the said application ; and the Workmen Union on the date of making application for referendum did not have one-third strength of the total work--men employed in the establishment and therefore no! Competent to make an application under section 22 (2) of the Ordinance. By his letter dated 18th May, 1982, the Labour Officer, on behalf of the Registrar, informed the Petitioner Union that the objections raised by the petitioner Union were not found valid and therefore rejected by the Registrar. 1n the circumstances the Petitioner filed the present constitutional petition in this Court on 5th June, 1982, which was admitted to regular hearing on 7th June, 1982.
A stay application (Misc. S. 285 of 1982) was also filed to stay the referen--dum fixed for 10th June, 1982, on which notice was issued to the respon--dent for 8th June, 1982, on which date an ad interim order was passed by this Court allowing the referendum to be held but ordering that the result will not be announced until the decision of the application. By order dated 1st September, 1982, it was ordered by this Court that the stay application be heard alongwith the main petition today.
3. I have heard Mr. M. L. Shahani, Advocate for the Petitioner and Chowdhry Rashid Ahmed, Advocate for respondent No. 3 and Mir Raza Hussain Hydri Advocate for. Respondent No 5. Respondent No. 2, the Labour Officer is present on his behalf and on behalf of respondent No. 1 and Waqar Ahmed, General Secretary of respondent No. 4 is present on behalf of respondent No. 4. Mr. M. L. Shahani raised the following three contentions in support of the petition :- (i)The application made by Workmen Union on 8th October, 1981, was incompetent, as no such application could be entertained within two years of the certification of the Collective Bargaining Agent under section 22
(10) of the 1969 Ordinance ; .
(ii)At the time the application dated 8th October, 1981 was moved by the Workmen Union, the Employees'
Union was not registered-it had been registered on 22nd December, 1981-and as such the Employees Union (respondent No. 3) could not take part in the referendum ; and (i.e)Employees' Union (respondent No. 3) was illegally registered by the Registrar and as such it could not take part in the referendum.
As regards the second contention, Mr. M. L. Shahani, learned Counsel for the petitioner, referred to section 22
(2) of the 1969 Ordinance. Accord--ing to the learned counsel only those Trade Unions could take part in the referendum, who were registered trade unions at the time the application under section 22 (2) was made by a registered trade union. Admittedly, Employees Union (respondent No. 3 ) was registered as a trade union on 22nd December, 1981, much before the date on which the referendum took place, which was 10th June, 1982, and the said Union also participated in the proceedings before the Registrar in connection with the holding of the referendum, if such interpretation is placed upon section 22 (2) of the 1969 Ordinance, as is sought to be placed by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, a large number of the employees of an establishment can stand disenfran--chised and an interpretation in favour of giving the right to such workmen to exercise their vote for determination of Collective Bargaining Agent is to be preferred to 'an interpretation, ,which would disenfranchise them. In my view, if a trade union has been registered, Though after the making of the application by another registered trade union under section 22 (2) of the 19691 Ordinance, and this newly registered trade union has participated in the' proceedings before the Registrar, such new trade union is not debarred from B taking part in the referendum as an aspirant for .Collective Bargaining. Agent of the establishment. Application under section 22 (2) has to be moved by a registered trade union but all unions, which are duly registered under the Ordinance, 1969, can take part in the referendum.
4. In the circumstances Const. Petition No. S. 102 of 1982 is dismiss--ed but with no order as to costs. As a result Misc. No. S. 282 of 1982 also stands dismissed and the ad interim order dated 8th June, 1982 stands recalled.