This appeal has been heard under subsection (4) of section 223 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, in the absence of learned Member Mr. Ashraf Ali, Joint Secretary, Labour.
2. The appeal filed by Pakistan WAPDA Labour Union is directed against the order, dated 26-10-1986 of a Single Bench of this Commission, exercising powers of Registrar, dismissing the appellant union's application made under section 22(2) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, for holding of secret ballot for determination of the collective bargaining agent for the workmen employed in the WAPDA.
3. The application had been made as early as 31-5-1983. The Union had originally claimed membership of more than 60,000 workers but later, on 25-7-1983, they substituted it by a list of 44046. On scrutiny the list was found to suffer from incorrect information and counting mistakes.
The Union, accordingly, withdrew the list and re-submitted the same on 26-7-1984 alongwith index showing locality---were distribution of its members. This list, too, they withdrew on 27-11-1984 and re-submitted the same once again on 28-5-1985 alongwith another index. Since the list required verification, the WAPDA was directed by the Single Bench, vide letter, dated 14-7-1986, to provide facilities of T.A./D.A. To not more than 10 nominees of the union and to treat the period spent by them in the verification, as duty. At the same time the Union was asked on 15-7-1986 to nominate its representatives. Upon this union having nominated 8 persons, a direction was issued on 14-9- 1986 to the WAPDA to relieve the 8 nominees of the union and ask them to report to the Commission or 5-10-1986. A copy of the letter was duly endorsed to the Union. However, none reported to the Commission on that date nor was any reason for the same conveyed. Although there is no specific direction of the Registrar, a further letter did issue to the WAPDA on 6-10-1986 asking them to spare the nominees of the Union and to direct them to report at the Commission's Head Office "immediately for the purpose of verification". A copy of this letter, was also endorsed to the General Secretary of the Union. However, nothing appears to have happened until 26-10-1986 when the application was dismissed by the Single Bench. The reason for the dismissal was the inability of the Union to establish that it had membership of not less than one-third of the total number of workers employed in the establishment. The learned Bench also found, in this connection, that while the total number of workmen employed in the WAPDA was 1,11,439 the Union had proved membership of only 13,045 members which fell far short of the minimum one-third which came to 37,147.
4. It was urged on behalf of the appellant that the nominees o the Union could not appear and assist in the verification of the list because they were not released by the WAPDA in spite of the direction issued by the Commission. There is nothing on the record, however, to support this. Even if it were so it was upto the union to have laid the information in time before the Single Bench They did no do so although the letter issued to WAPDA in this connection~ ad been duly endorsed to them. Since the burden of proof of show n the requisite membership was on the Union, it was primarily for the to have done everything that they could do in the exercise of ordinary diligence and care. We do not understand why they failed to inform the Single Bench of the reason for the inability of their nominees to appear. They are, therefore, themselves partly if not wholly responsible for the decision of their application. In the circumstance, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is, consequently, dismissed.