DECISION This is an appeal against an award dated October 1, 1971, whereby the learned Sind Labour Court No. 1 came to the conclusion that the respondents the West Pakistan Hydro Electric Central Labour Union, Lahore (hereinafter called the Central Labour Union), "Shall continue to be the Collective Bargaining Agent in respect of the establishment of WAPDA as Sukkur also until the Registrar of.
Trade Unions determines Collective Bargaining Agent for this establishment in accordance with the procedure laid down under section 22 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter called the Ordinance). The facts giving rise to the present appeal briefly put are these.
2. The Central Labour Union was registered as a Union for various establishments of WAPDA in the Province of West Pakistan. The Central Labour Union was declared to be the Collective Bargaining Agent of all the establishment, including the appellants. The WAPDA Electricity Employees' Union (Southern Zone), Sukkur. The appellants were registered with the Registrar of Trade Unions, Sind, in July 1970. Thereafter, they applied to the Registrar for a Certificate that they were the Collective Bargaining. Agent of WAPDA Electricity Employees' Union, Sukkur. A Certificate to that effect was granted by the Registrar of Trade Unions, Sind on 3rd March 1971. The Certificate granted by the Registrar of Trade Unions effected the right of the Central Labour Union to at as Collective Bargaining Agent for the Sukkur establishment.
The Central Labour Union therefore, made an application under section 34 of the Ordinance for enforcement of their right to at as the Collective Bargaining Agent.
3. The learned Court, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, determined to points, namely, (1) whether the Certificate granted by the Registrar was a valid. One and, (2) whether an application under section 34 of the Ordinance was maintainable. The learned. Court came to the conclusion that the Certificate was invalid and that the application was maintainable.
4. The learned Court rightly came to the conclusion that the Certificate granted by the Registrar holding the appellant to be the Collective Bargaining Agent was clearly in violation of the provision of subsection (2) of section 22 of the Ordinance. The said provision of law requires that the Registrar shall, upon an application made in this behalf by any such Trade Union which has as its members not less than one-third of the total number of workmen employed in such establishment or group of establishments or by the employer, hold a secret ballot to determine as to which one of such Trade Unions shall be the collective bargaining agent . . . . . . . . .". It would be useful, while considering this question, to produce the Certificate granted by the Registrar. It runs as under:--- The record produced by you on 3-3-1971 has shown that your Union has its members more than 1/3rd of the total number of workmen employed to Thermal Power Station, Sukkur, and as such your Union is Collective Bargaining Agent for Thermal Power Station, Sukkur, under subsection (1) of section 22 of the Industrial Relations Amendment Ordinance, 1970."
5. This Certificate is addressed to the General Secretary, WAPDA Electricity Employees' Union (Southern Zone), Sukkur. A perusal of the above Certificate would show that the Registrar hold the appellant Union to be the Collective Bargaining Agent without complying with the provisions of section 22 o: the Ordinance. Moreover, on that face of it, the Certificate is bad. The Rules of the appellant Union, which have been filed in this Court, would show that the membership of the Union is open` to all the employees of WAPDA Electricity of Southern Zone. Even if the law was that if a Union had one-third workmen employed in a certain establishment, it could be held to be the Collective Bargaining Agent, the Registrar should have considered the employees of WAPDA Electricity, Southern Zone, and not only Thermal Power Station, Sukkur.
6. The learned Court rightly relied on the section 30 of the Industrial Relations Amendment Ordinance, 1970, in support of his conclusion that the Trade Union which immediately before the commencement of the Ordinance was a Collective Bargaining Agent for any establishment, would be deemed to have been declared as Collective Bargaining Agent under the Industrial Relations Ordinance.
7. Mr. M. A. Majeed, the learned Representative for the appellant, relied on section 67 (2) (a) of the Ordinance, in support of his contention that the Central Labour Union ;vas not registered as a Trade Union and, therefore, the provisions of section 30, already referred to above, or section 52 of the Ordinance would not help the Central Labour Union. It would be useful, in order to appreciate the contention of Mr. Majeed, to reproduce clause (a) of subsection (2) of section 67 of. The Ordinance.
It runs as under :-- "every Trade Union existing immediately before the com--mencement of this Ordinance, which was registered under any such law, shall be deemed to be registered under this Ordinance and Its constitution shall continue In force until altered or rescinded : "
8. Mr. Majeed contended that only that Union would be deemed to have been registered under the Ordinance, which was registered under any law, which has been repealed. In this connection, Mr. Majeed contended that it is not the case of the Central Labour Union that It was registered under the West Pakistan Trade Unions Ordinance, 1968, (hereinafter called the Ordinance of 1968), which has now been u pealed. Mr. Majeed, therefore, contended that the Central Labour Union cannot be deemed to be a registered Union for the purposes of the Ordinance. The argument made on first impression appears to be a plausible one, but as pointed out by Mr. S. P. Lodhi, the learned Representative for respondent No. 4 (Central Labour Union), that under the provisions of section 56 of the Ordinance of 1968, a Trade Union which was registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, would be deemed to have been registered under the Ordinance of 1968. Section 56 e of the Ordinance of 1968, repealed the trade Unions Act, 1926, but had saved the Trade Union existing at the the of the coming into force of the Ordinance of 1968, which was registered under the said Act of 1926. In that view of the matter, the Central Labour Union would be deemed to have been registered under the Ordinance of 1968, and therefore, its registration was saved under section 67 of the Ordinance.
9. I would, for the reasons given above, maintain the order of the learned Labour Court and dismiss the appeal.