DECISION This is an appeal against an award dated 21st November 1970. whereby the learned Chairman of the Second Sind Labour Court, Karachi. dismissed the application under section 34, of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter called the Ordinance), on the ground that the Indus Chemical and Alkalis Workers' Union (hereinafter called the Union), was not a Collective Bargaining Agent. It would be helpful to reproduce the relevant finding of the learned Court in the disposal of the appeal. It runs as under:-- "Section 22 of the Ordinance, Inter alia says that where there are more than one registered Trade Unions, the Registrar shall within one month from the date of the receipt of a written request in that behalf; hold a secret ballot . . . . the Registrar shall on the result of such secret ballot declare the Trade Union or the federation as the case may be, which has obtained the highest number of votes to be the Collective Bargaining Agent in respect of the establishment etc . . . . . --- The reading of the section leaves no manner of doubt that in case of plurality of Trade Unions, the Collective Bargaining Agent, can be determined and declared as a result of a referendum and, not otherwise. The intention of the law-makers demonstrably was to obviate all under hand methods, and leave the Union, with the largest following in the field to represent the employees of an establishment or establish--ments as the case may be. The petitioners may not be, what in common parlance is called a pocket union, but that would be hardly relevant not being the Collective Bargaining Agent in the eyes of law, the petitioners cannot represent the workers of their establishment or raise any industrial dispute in their behalf. That would go to the very root of the case and the petition must fail.
Mr. Salim Akhtar Shamsi, had raised a number of other contention which were replied by Mr. Ali Amjad, but as the matter stands it will be an essay in futility to dilate on the stone.
In the result the petition stands dismissed."
2. The relevant facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are these. The appellant Union was registered as a, Trade Union in July 1968. A second Union was formed in the establishment in November 1969. It was known as ---Indus Chemical Labour Union" and was registered as a Trade Union as such. A demand notice was given by the appellant Union on 27th April 1970, and the strike notice on 16 May 1970. The conciliation proceedings commenced on 26 1970. The conciliation proceeding having failed and in meantime the Management, according to the appellant Union having illegally terminated the services of some of the workmen and having locked out some other workmen the appellant Union made are application under section 34, of the Ordinance on 20 June 1970. The leaned Chairman in a detailed order cause to the Conclusion as already reproduced respondent that the appellant Union was not the Collective. Bargaining Agent and therefore could not make an application under section 34 of the Ordinance.
3. The short point that requires consideration in this appeal is that there being another registered Trade Union, though it came into existence after about a year of the appellant Trade Union, whether the latter could make an application under section 34 of the Ordinance. In this con-- nection, the relevant provision of law that would require consideration is subsections (1) and (2) of section 22, and section 2 of the Ordinance. They run 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 19 be the collective bargaining agent for such establishment or industrial unit, or for each 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 the Province concerned.
(3) . ------------------------------------------------------------------------------"
Section 52.-"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."
4. So far as section 22 of the Ordinance is concerned, it dons not clarify as to what would' happen if none of the registered Trade Unions apply to the Registrar to hold a secret ballot. Section 52 of the Ordinance, however, could meet the situation where none of the Unions apply to the Registrar for holding a ballot. Section 52 of the Ordinance contemplates the possibility of the Unions not applying to the Registrar for holding election. In that case, a registered Trade Union, which has been recognised by the employer, would perform all the functions conferred upon a Collective Bargaining Agent. It seems to me that the attention of the learned Chairman of the Labour Court was not drawn to the provision of section 52, of the Ordinance. The learned Representative appearing for the appellant-Union did not make it -clear to the Court that the appellant Union had been recognised by the employer as registered Trade-Union, This document has been produced before me. I have admitted it in the interest of justice. The other side did not oppose its admission. It rugs as under:-- "Having satisfied ourselves" that the Indus Chemical and Alkalis Workers' Union fulfils- all the conditions set out in section 38 of the West Pakistan Trade Union Ordinance, 1968, in respect of ourth th th industry we hereby affirm that the said Trade Union is recognized for the purposes of and subject to the conditions laid down in the West Pakistan Trade Unions Ordinance, 1968."
5. It is signed by the General Manager and Factory Manager on behalf of the employer. There is another document dated 13th January. 1969 which has also been admitted by me. It is signed by the Registrar of Trade Unions, Karachi, and runs as under :- "The aforesaid Memorandum of Recognition has been recorded in the Register maintained for the purpose under section 38 of the West Pakistan Trade Unions Ordinance, 1968, at serial No. 54 on 28- 12-1968."
6. Not only that these documents go to establish that the employer had recognised the appellant- Union as, a registered Trade Union, there is also an agreement between the parties. The agreement would disclose that the Union was recognise by the employer as registered Trade Union. All that was urged on behalf of the respondent by Mr. Ali Ahmad Fazeel, the learned Advocate, was that the respondent challenged the con--stitution of the appellant-Union on 1st June 1970, through a letter addressed to the Labour Director. Challenging the constitution of the appellant-Union is one thing and recognition is quite different. The respondent having once recognized the appellant-Union as registered Trade-Union prior to tile dispute between the parties cannot now without any good reason go back on the letter recognising the Union.
7. It is true that in the case of Abbas Ali Shah (1974 PLC 373). I held while interpreting the expression, "any party" occurring in section 34 of the Ordinance, that it means "Collective Bargaining Agent" and that an application under section 34 of the Ordinance could be made only by a Collective Bargaining Agent. In that case of Abbas Ali Shah the expression that required interpretation was only "any party" and not the scope of section 52 of the Ordinance. It is well- settled principle of Interpretation of Statutes that different provisions of the same Statute must be so read that they are reconcilable with each other and not repugnant to each other. Section 22, read with section 52 of the Ordinance makes it very clear that where there are two registered Trade Unions, the one recognized by the employer can perform the functions of a Collective Bargaining Agent.
8. Mr. Ali Ahmad Fazeel, the learned Advocate for the respondent, in the first place, contended that the word "until' occurring in section 52 of the Ordinance means " as soon a possible". Accepting the meaning assigned by the learner Advocate to the word "until", I do not see that it will affect the right of the appellant Union to perform the functions whirl may have been performed by a Collective Bargaining Agent.
9. In, the second place, Mr. Ali Ahmad Fazeel, the learned Advocate for the respondent, contended that the general provision in a Statute cannot be done away with He submitted that section 22 of the Ordinance was the general provision and it cannot be ignored. In this connection, the learned Advocate contended that a duty was cast upon the appellant-Union to apply to the Registrar to bold a ballot to determine the re--presentation of each registered Trade Union in the establishment concerned. I cannot read subsection (2) of section 22, already reproduced, to mean as causing any duty an any of the Unions to apply to the Registrar to hold a secret ballot. It appears to me that the language of subsection (2) of section 22 of the Ordinance is only permissive and not mandatory. It is to meet a situation like this where none of the Trade Unions apply t the Registrar for a ballot that section 52 of the Ordinance come into operation. If the ingredients of section 52 of the Ordinance are fulfilled by any of the Unions, it can perform the functions of a Collective Bargaining Agent.
10. Lastly, it was submitted by Mr. Ali Ahmad Fazeel that I should give a finding on all the issues between the parties. On the other hand, it was submitted by Mr. Ali Amjad, Advocate for the appellant. Union, that the learned Court had not given any categorical finding on the issues raised by the parties, except the one on which the petition has been dismissed. This Court should not perform the function of the trial Court. There is much force in this contention and I accept the submission of Mr. Ali Amjad. Mr. Ahmad Fazeel expressed some apprehension that the learned Court, having expressed its view on certain aspects of the case, may not change the same. I do not see any basis for this apprehension. Every day the High Court remands cases to the trial Court for fresh decision, after setting aside it finding. It does not mead that the Court would necessary stick to its views what it expressed earlier. It is open to the, Court to stick to the views that it has already expressed for good reasons or to change the same after hearing the parties. With these observations, I would allow the appeal and set aside the finding of the learned Chairman of the Labour Court. The learned Court would dispose of the issues raised by the parties after hearing them. I believe the parties have closed their evidence.