' Through this Constitutional petition, the petitioner seeks a direction against the Registrar of Trade Unions, Multan Region, Multan, for holding referendum as required by section 22 of the I.R.O., 1969, in the establishment of Habib Bank Ltd., City. Zone, Multan.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Trade Union formed in the City Zone of Habib Bank Ltd., Multan. The Habib Bank Ltd., Multan Zone was bifurcated into City Zone and Cantonment Zone in the year, 1984. At that time, there were two registered Trade Unions, namely, Habib Bank Ltd. Employees Union, respondent No, 2, and the Staff Union. As a result of the elections, held in the year, 1986, the Employees Union, respondent No, 2 was certified to be the Collective Bargaining Agent by the Registrar, respondent No, 1, on 2-9-1986. As the establishment, i,e, Habib Bank Ltd., Multan was split up into two zones in 1984, Workers Front, Habib Bank Ltd. The petitioner was registered as a Trade Union for the City Zone by the Registrar, vide his order dated 18-5-1987.
Before expiry of two years, the, petitioner applied to the Registrar of Trade Unions, Multan, for being certified as C.B.A. For the City Zone but he refused to do so vide his order dated 20-6-1987 on the ground that the period of two years had not yet expired. Against the order dated 20-6-1987, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No, 824 of 1987, which was disposed of by the Court on 29-6-1987 with the observation that after the expiry of the period of two years, the law will have its own course. The said order was challenged in ICA No, 17 of 1987, which was disposed of with the observation that the Registrar will act strictly in accordance with the law. It meant the observance of the provisions of section 22(10) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. After the disposal of the ICA, the petitioner submitted an application before the Registrar on 30-10-1988 for holding secret ballot in the establishment of City Zone in the light of the observation of the High Court and the provisions of section 10 of the I.R.O. However, despite the lapse of 15 days, the Registrar did not hold the referendum which necessitated the institution of the present petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the City Zone was a separate "establishment", rather, a group of establishments consisting of about 25/30 branches in the City Zone. The petitioner, being the only trade union, registered in the said establishment deserved to be declared as Collective Bargaining Agent. He urged that the word "establishment" was wide enough to cover an office or a shop and would, of course, cover the entire City Zone in which several offices and branches were located. In this connection, he placed reliance on Grindlays Bank (Lloyds Branch)
Employees' Union v. Registrar Trade Unions, Lahore Region, Lahore and another 1980 L L C 72; Bakhsh Textile Mills Employees' Union, Thatta v. Registrar, Trade Unions, Karachi and 3 others 1976 L L C 74; Sind Industrial Trading Estates Ltd. Employees Union, Karachi v. The Registrar Trade Unions, Government of Sind and 2 others 1973 L L C 158. He further submitted that even if there existed some other Union in the City Zone, the Registrar ought to hold referendum to ascertain the Collective Bargaining Agent.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 2 and 3 urged that the word "establishment" should not be given such a wide meaning without ascertaining functional integralities between the constituent parts. He placed reliance on The Associated Cement Companies Ltd., Chaibasa Cement Works, Jhinkpani v. Their Workmen AIR 1960 SC 56; Pakshiraja Studios v. Their Workmen 1962 PLC 99; Indian Cable Co., Ltd., Calcutta v. Their Workmen 1962 PLC 1408; Muhammad Bakhsh Malik v. Singer Sewing Machine Company and another 1975 PLC 623, In re: Application of Pakistan Spensers Employees' Union 1977 PLC 20; Grindlays Bank (Lloyds Branch)
Employees' Union v. Registrar Trade Unions, Lahore Region, Lahore and another 1980 L L C 72 and K.M.C. Sanitary and General Employees' Union v. Sind Labour Court No, 1, Karachi and 3 others 1987 PLC 754 to urge that Habib Bank Ltd., City Zone could not be declared to be a separate establishment.
5. I have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties. The definition of the word "establishment" given under section 2(ix) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, reads as under:-- "(ix) 'Establishment' means any office, firm, industrial unit, undertaking, shop or premises in which workmen are employed for the purpose of carrying on any industry (and except in section 22-EE, includes a Collective Bargaining Unit, if any, constituted under that section in any establishment or group of establishments."
' The word "industry" has been defined under section 2(xiv) as under:-- "(xiv) 'Industry' means any business, trade, manufacture, calling, service, employment or occupation."
The word "establishment" in the ordinary sense means household, staff of servants etc., public institution, house of business (Concise Oxford Dictionary 7th Edition page 330). Thus, in the common parlance, any organized set-up of men including the household and a number of public institutions as well as business organizations are covered in the meaning of the word "establishment". The legal definition excludes from its ambit, a host of establishments like household, public institutions of social and political nature, army, navy, civil service institutions and educational institutions and the like. The word "establishment" as defined in the Industrial Relations Ordinance covers small or big business set-ups including an office, shop, firm, industrial unit or undertaking or premises in which workmen are employed for carrying on any business, trade, manufacture, calling, service, employment or occupation. The number of workmen employed in an establishment is not relevant to bring it within the definition of the word "establishment". Thus, a small shop or office having a few workmen and big concerns having thousands of employees are covered by the said definition. A small business concern having only three employees is an establishment within the meaning of the law. It was so held in the case of Messrs Rafiq and Company, Karachi and 6 others v. Adam 1975 PLC 679. The said case pertained to different petrol pumps being run by the six appellants who had obtain, kl agencies from Messrs Pakistan Burmah Shell and had employed 2 or 3 persons on each of the petrol pump stations. It was held that each petrol pump station was an establishment within the meaning of the law. The relevant portion is reproduced as under:-- "An employer may have more than one establishment, or more industrial units in Industrial Area, and the expression 'Establishment' would include not whole of the establishment, but each of them individually."
Obviously, Habib Bank is running business of various kinds and is providing banking service to the citizens. It is covered by the definition of "industry". If a narrow view of the word "establishment" is taken, then throughout the country, there exists only one establishment, known as Habib Bank and there can be only one Collective Bargaining Agent in the country. Such a restricted meaning would obviously create hardship for the labour employed therein and prejudice their rights, which can be secured by their local representatives, who are well aware of their problems which vary from place to place. The problems and requirements of the workmen have to differ in view of the local conditions prevailing in different cities and even in different branches and zones of the same city.
Hence, it is essential to give extended and really intended meaning to the word "establishment" so as to allow room for treating each organized set-up under a big establishment as an "establishment". This would be more in consonance with the spirit of democracy and encourage workmen to form trade unions in different local areas for protecting their rights. Of course, the Collective Bargaining Agent can be only one in each "establishment". While dealing with a similar question in the case of Grind lays Bank (Llyods Branch) Employees' Union v. Registrar Trade Unions, Lahore Region, Lahore and another 1980 L L C 72, it was held, "The word 'establishment' as defined in the Ordinance when interpreted keeping the above principle in view is open to only one conclusion that in the same industry there can be more than one establishment. The phrase 'any office, firm, industrial unit, undertaking, shop or premises in which workmen are employed for the purpose of carrying on any industry' etc., does not suffer from any ambiguity. One cannot add to the phrase so as to get the meaning that an establishment means establishment of one particular employer. I have gone through the reasoning of the Chairman of the Commission in the judgment cited by the respondents and I feel the same suffers from the germs of its own defeat. If the reasoning of the Chairman is adopted, what will happen to, a multi-national concern with its head office outside Pakistan but branches within. As, on the above interpretation, there cannot be any registered trade union except for the establishment, will not the workers, of the branches in Pakistan be denied the benefits of the Labour Laws. Taking the case of a domestic concern, say for example the Habib Bank Ltd. How can there be uniform benefits as result of bargaining with the employer regarding leave and other seasonal benefits if the branches are located in cold and hot areas. If the interpretation that establishment means the whole organization which carries on any business or industry and not its branches at various places, is accepted, this would render other provisions of the Ordinance to be redundant. Redundancy cannot, ordinarily, be read into the statutory provisions. Trade Union means 'any combination of workmen or employers There is thus no such restriction that there can be only one trade union for an 'establishment' as interpreted by the Chairman of the Commission. To give effect to this interpretation one shall have to add this provision of the Ordinance. The phrases 'where there are no registered Trade Unions' than one in an establishment or a group of establishments, the Registrar shall use in subsection (2) of section 22, also contemplates that there can be more than one registered Trade Union in an establishment. The underlined phrase in section 22(EE) 'belong to the same employer and the same industry' also, visualises that there can be more than one establishment belonging to the same employer or in the same industry. There may be cases where there is only one trade union for the entire establishment but this does not shut out the possibility of there being more than one trade union in different establishments of the same industry. This is the only possible conclusion that can be drawn interpreting various provisions of Industrial Relations Ordinance taken together." I fully endorse the view expressed by my learned brother Khalil-ur-Rehman, J. In the above referred case.
In the present case, the Habib Bank itself felt the necessity of dividing the Multan Zone into two different zones with independent administrative control. This was, probably, done due to increase in the number of the workmen and branches in the Multan Zone. There can be no difficulty in treating the two zones as separate "establishments for the purposes of registration of trade unions and their certification as Collective Bargaining Agent.
7. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents from the Indian jurisdiction, The Associated Cement Companies Ltd., Chaibasa Cement Works, Jhinkpani v. Their Workmen AIR 1960 SC 56 is distinguishable because the said case pertains to a Cement Factory and limestone quarry situated near the factory. Both were under the administrative control of the same manager and were owned by one person. Thus, there was complete unity of ownership, unity of management, supervision and control, unity of labour and conditions of service of workmen, functional integrality, general unity of purpose and geographical proximity. It was treated to be one "establishment" because the limestone factory was held to be an integral part of the factory. While dealing with the question as to what is one "establishment", the Court referred to various considerations like geographical proximity, unity of ownership, management and control, unity of employment and conditions of service etc. But, ultimately, held, It is, perhaps, impossible to lay down any one test as an absolute and invariable test for all cases ". The judgment was rendered by the Court in the peculiar circumstances of the case in which the establishment in question was a factory and a lime quarry which supplied the raw material exclusively to the factory. Thus, there was no difficulty in holding that the factory and the, adjacent limestone quarry was one establishment. It is also significant that the judgment of the Indian Supreme Court was rendered with reference to the definition of "Industrial Establishment" contained in the explanation to section 25-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which is reproduced below:-- "(i) a factory as defined in clause (m) of section 2 of the Factories Act, 1948, or
(ii) a mine as defined in clause (j) of section 2 of the Mines Act, 1952; or
(iii) a plantation as defined in clause (f) of section 2 of the Plantations Labour Act, 1951."
' This definition has no nexus with the definition embodied in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, of our country. Hence, the said judgment can be of little help to determine the true meaning of the definition of the word "establishment" under section 2(ix) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance.
8. The case of Pakshiraja Studios v. Their Workmen 1962 PLC 99 pertained to the film studios and film productions and it was held that due to the functional integrality, the same constituted one establishment. The said case is clearly distinguishable on facts and is of no help to the respondents. In the case of Muhammad Bakhsh Malik v. Singer Sewing Machine Company and another 1975 PLC 623, following AIR 1960 SC 56, it was held that the Branch Office of Singer Sewing Machine Company, Lahore being completely under the administrative control of the Head Office, Karachi, in matters of leave even for one day, pay bills and other matters, was one establishment. I do not agree with the view expressed by the Tribunal in this case. The Tribunal erroneously proceeded to follow the tests laid down in the Indian judgment for holding that the Lahore Office and Karachi Head Office of the Singer Sewing Machine was one "establishment". In the case of M.K.C. Sanitary and General Employees' Union v. Sind Labour Court No, 1, Karachi and 3 others 1987 PLC 754, it was held that the word "establishment" as defined in the Industrial Relations Ordinance failed to provide any specific test for determining a single establishment. On facts, it was held that Karachi Water and Sewerage Board established in Karachi Metropolitan Corporation was a separate establishment because the Board was separately managed by an independent Chief Executive and had its separate office and employees and had all the attributes of an independent establishment. Thus, it was held that the workers working therein could form a trade union relating only to such board and get the same registered by the Registrar, Trade Unions. In the case of Pakistan Spensers Employees' Union 1977 PLC 20, the National Industrial Relations Commission dealt with the question as to what was meant by the term "establishment" as defined in section 2(ix) of the Ordinance. The Chairman of the National Industrial Relations Commission opined that the said word did not embrace within its scope the branches of a large establishment.
Referring to Habib Bank itself, he expressed the view that the Bank as a whole was one "establishment" in the country and there could be only industry-wise trade unions, out of which one Collective Bargaining Agent could be elected. The National Industrial Relations Commission consisted of six members, out of whom four members did not agree with the view expressed by the Chairman. The four members who differed with the view of the Chairman expressed the view that the term "establishment" as defined in section 2(ix) of the Ordinance, did embrace within its scope the branches of a large establishment. Giving example of a bank, they opined that each branch of a bank could be an "establishment" and at the same time, the bank, as a whole, could be called an establishment. They placed reliance on the judgment of the Sind and Baluchistan High Court reported in PLD 1978 Kar.
649. In the said judgment, the Court expressed the following view:-- "From its definition it would appear that an employer himself may have more than one Establishment, for example offices in a commercial area, shops in business area, or one or more industrial units in an industrial area and the expression 'establishment' would include not whole of the establishment of an employer but each of them individually."
' I am in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Division Bench of the Sind and Baluchistan High Court, which was followed by Mamoon A. Qazi (Senior member) and supported by the three other members of the N.I.R.C. It may be pointed out that as a result of the views expressed by the four members of the N.I.R.C., the Commission acting as Registrar in the case certified the petitioner-Trade Union as Collective Bargaining Agent for those branches of the organisation known as Messrs Spenser's & Co. (Pakistan Ltd.) in which it had membership. I may add that if the view of the learned Chairman of the National Industrial Relations Commission is followed, then trade union activities would be discouraged, rather completely frustrated. It might become impossible for any union to have 1/5th of the total number of the employees in the entire country, to be registered as trade union (as provided under subsection (2)(b) of section 7 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance). It is, indeed, very difficult even in one city to have membership of the requisite number of the employees of the establishment working in different branches.
9. In the present case, as mentioned above, the number of the branches in Multan City was increased and the number of the employees was also swollen. Perhaps, this necessitated the bifurcation of the zone into two independent zones; one for the City and the other for the Cantonment area. I am told that there are about 30 branches of the Bank in the City Zone. Both the zones fall in the administrative control of different executive heads and can be conveniently treated as two independent zones for the purpose of certifying the Collective Bargaining Agents.
The Trade Unions formed in the two zones are better aware of the problems of the workmen employed in various branches of the zones. The Trade Union located in the Cantonment Zone cannot properly look after the interests and welfare of the employees of the City Zone. It is, therefore, in the interest of the workmen employed in the two zones that there should be two Collective Bargaining Agents in the two zones. No doubt, speaking generally, Habib Bank is one large establishment but its branches located in different places having a large number of employees/workmen and falling in the independent administrative control of different executive heads, could be treated as independent establishments for the purposes of labour laws.
10. In the present case, the petitioner-Union has been registered as a Trade Union and has its following in the entire City Zone consisting of various branches of Habib Bank. Although legally, each branch can be treated as a separate establishment, however, if various small branches fall in an independent zone under the administrative control of one executive head, the same can also be treated as one establishment. I, therefore, hold that Habib Bank City Zone, Multan, and Cantonment Zone, Multan, are two "establishments" for the purpose of registration of trade unions and certification of Collective Bargaining Agents in the zones. The petitioner-union was duly registered as a Trade Union by the Registrar of the Trade Unions, Multan, on 2-9-1986. It has every right to demand referendum for being certified as Collective Bargaining Agent for the City Zone.
Respondent No, 2 was certified to be a Collective Bargaining Agent more than two years ago. The petitioner-union made an application after the expiry of two years on 30-10-1988 for holding secret ballot in the establishment of City Zone but the Registrar failed to perform his legal duty in accordance with the law.
11. Resultantly, this writ petition is accepted with costs and the Registrar, Trade Unions, Multan, respondent No, 1, is directed to hold referendum through secret ballot to ascertain the Collective Bargaining Agent in the Habib Bank City Zone, Multan, in accordance with the provisions of section 22 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. In case the petitioner-union is the only one in the field, without there being any other contestant, then the petitioner-union shall be declared to be the Collective Bargaining Agent for the Habib Bank City Zone, Multan.