' This is a suo motu revision of the proceedings initiated before the learned Presiding Officer, Sind Labour Court No. V at Karachi under section 7(2) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, for an offence and or Standing Order 10-C(2) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968.
2. The arguments of learned counsel Mr. Mahmood A. Ghani and Mr. Abdul Majeed were heard today.
3. The facts of the case briefly are that Hyesons Electric Company Workers Union of which Mr. Abdul Majeed is the General Secretary raised an industrial dispute on 3-1-1982, incorporating 6 demands, demand No. 3 of this Industrial Dispute pertains to bonus and reads as under:- "Annual Bonus at the rate of 3 months gross salary should be paid to all workers. The bonuses should be paid in the first week of Ramazan and one bonus 15 days before Eidul Azha every year."
4. The industrial dispute resulted in the failure of the conciliation proceedings. Mr. Abdul Majeed in his capacity as the General Secretary the State Bank of Pakistan Class IV Employees Union, Karachi under section 22-D(I) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 against the order dated 16-7-1984 passed by a Single Bench of the Commission, rejecting the application filed by State Bank of Pakistan Employees Union under section 22-EE of the said Ordinance, for certifying and declaring three establishments of the State Bank of Pakistan, Karachi as one C.B.U.
2. The three establishments of the State Bank of Pakistan, Karachi in question are: (i) the Central Directorate, (ii) the Local Office, and (iii) the Printing Press. The workmen concerned comprise the clerical staff (formerly known as Class III) and the non-clerical staff (formerly known as Class IV) who are employed in the said establishments at Karachi.
3. The clerical staff (Class III workers) in these establishments were represented by an old trade union registered in the year, 1960, called 'Statt. Bank of Pakistan Employees Union' (hereinafter referred to as "Class III Union"). Similarly, the non-clerical (Class IV workers) working in these establishments were represented by another old trade union registered in the year, 1958 known as State Bank of Pakistan Class IV Employees Union, Karachi (hereinafter referred as "Class IV Union").
These Unions were carrying on collective bargaining until 1975. Thereafter the pay, allowances and other benefits are being regulated by awards of the Wage Commission periodically.
4. Recently on 9-10-1983, a new trade union was registered in the Central Directorate in the name of State Bank of Pakistan Central Directorate Staff Union Karachi claiming to represent both the clerical and non-clerical workers employed in the Central Directorate. Another new trade union was registered on 9-10-1983 in the name of State Bank of Pakistan Labour Union, Local Office, claiming to represent both clerical and non-clerical workers employed in the Local Office, Karachi.
The newly registered trade unions applied to the Register of Trade Unions, Karachi to hold separate secret ballots in the Central Directorate and in the Local Office to determine Collective Bargaining Agent in each of these two establishments, under section 22(2) of the said Ordinance. On being called to indicate their willingness to participate in the two secret ballots, the Class III Union and the Class IV Union raised objections on the ground that referendum cannot be held in the Central Directorate and the Local Office separately without first bifurcating the establishments. That moreover, the objecting unions are unions of Group of establishments having membership in both establishments, which the new unions have registration and membership in only one or other of these two establishments. As this objection was not accepted by the Registrar of Trade Unions, the Class III Union submitted an application to the Commission under section 22-EE of the Ordinance, praying the Commission to "determine and certify one C.B.U. Of the State Bank of Pakistan at Karachi" comprising the three establishments. The Registrar of Trade Unions, Sind, Karachi, and the two newly-registered, trade Unions in the Central Directorate and in the Local office respectively were impleaded but the Management of State Bank of Pakistan was not impleaded.
5. During the hearing at Karachi on 26th February, 1984 one Turab Ali, President and Rashid Ahmad, General Secretary of the Class IV Union, who were present in Court, requested the learned Senior Member, that their Class IV Union may be impleaded as applicant No. 2, stating that they adopted the application and the pleadings of the applicant Class III Union and were accordingly impleaded.
6. After hearing the parties and considering the comments received from the Management of State Bank of Pakistan as well as after hearing the representatives of a number of trade unions who were registered in the Local offices of the State Bank of Pakistan situate in other major cities of Pakistan, to whom notices were issued by the learned Member, the impugned order was passed. The learned Senior Member found that the proceedings before him were moved with the main purpose to stay the referendum proceedings and that neither any case has been made out for declaring the three establishments of the State Bank of Pakistan as one C.B.U., nor the petition had been moved with bona fide intention. He, therefore, rejected the application and vacated the stay order granted earlier.
7. We have heard Mr. Abdul Majid Representative of the appellant, Class IV Union as well as Mr. Ali Amjad Advocate, who appeared on behalf of the newly-registered trade unions, respondents Nos.
4 and 5. The submission of Mr. Abdul Majid is that the learned Member failed to decide the case of the Class IV Union, who wanted that Class IV workers of the three establishments of the State Bank of Pakistan, Karachi be determined and certified as a category wise C.B.U. Under section 22-EE of the said Ordinance, as prayed for in the comments which were submitted jointly by the Union's President, Turab All and Rashid Ahmad, its General Secretary dated 26th April, 1984. He however, admitted that the learned Member in para. 9 of his order, did discuss the request of the appellant union but failed to grant the request, observing that by adopting the application and pleadings of the Class III Union, the Union in their parawise comments took a contradictory stand. We are not inclined to accept the submission of Mr. Majid, because we cannot understand how it can be said that the learned Member failed to decide the case of the appellant Class IV Union when there was no substantive application before him under section 22-EE by the appellant union for determining category wise C.B.U. No doubt a class of workers of an employer in one or more establishments within the same industry may be constituted as a C.B.U. Under section 22-EE read with the definition of Collective Bargaining Unit in section 2(va) of the Ordinance. But the burden of proof is on the union seeking such determination of C.B.U. To establish that in order to safeguard the interest of the workmen of the class or category, it is necessary, just and feasible to do so, having regard to the distribution of workers, existing boundaries of the components of such establishment or group, facilities of communication, general convenience, sameness or similarity of economic activity or other cognate factors. These factors have to be establishment to the satisfaction of the Commission after holding such an enquiry as it deems fit. The comments of the President and the General Secretary of the Union relied on by Mr. Majid, merely state that it has been the only cadrewise trade union representing Class IV employees since 1958 and has been accepted by the Wage Boards as well as the Management; that therefore, the position may not be disturbed and that they be granted Collective Bargaining rights cadre wise which will be beneficial to the Class IV workers. But comments are not a substantive application under section 22-EE, nor the Union produced any evidence before the Member on any of the factors, which are required to be taken into consideration under section 22-EE of the Ordinance. The Full Bench cannot now be called upon to hold such an enquiry. It was also not shown how injustice or any detriment to their interests would be caused to Class IV workers, by joining or associating with the clerical Class III workers in a combined trade union. On the other hand, Mr. Ali Amjad, submitted that merely because non- clerical Class IV workers in each establishment are in the minority, it does not follow that their rights will not be safeguarded by a combined trade union in which majority are clerical workers and that there is no conflict of interest between them. He further submitted that it is in the interest of both classes to have one common trade union which will enhance solidarity, cordiality and fraternity between the classes of workers of the same establishment.
8. The learned Member rightly observed that appellant Class IV Union as well as Class III Union who were working for the last 20 years, could have moved petitions under section 22-EE for certifying cadrewise C.B.Us. Much earlier, but all of a sudden unions became anxious to have one unit at Karachi, when they were called upon to contest the secret ballots, thus showing that their bona fides was not beyond doubt. Moreover, the learned Member was not called upon to decide the case not raised in the application and pleadings of the Class III Union, which was adopted by the present appellant Class IV Union. On the contrary, the case of the Class III Union in the pleading was different, namely, for certifying and determining the three establishments of the State Bank of Pakistan, Karachi as one C.B.U. And not for declaring and certifying cadrewise C.B.Us. In the group of establishments.
9. He also fail to see how the present appellant is aggrieved by the rejection of the prayer of the Class III Union for declaring the three establishments as one C.B.U. Mr. Abdul Majid, candidly admitted before us that his union was not concerned nor affected by the denial of this prayer, as the case of the appellant union was different namely, declaring categorywise C.B.Us. Not being aggrieved by the impugned decision, we are of the opinion that the appeal also is not competent as an appeal under section 22-D(1) is competent only by "any person aggrieved".
10. For the foregoing reasons, we see no force in this appeal. It is dismissed and the stay order is vacated.
11. Copy of the order should be sent to the Registrar of Trade Unions for his information, who may proceed in accordance with law.