' The petitioner is a Workers' Union and has challenged the order of respondent No, 2 appointing respondent No, 1 another union as Collective Bargaining Agent vide certificate dated 19-11-1985.
2. The relevant facts giving rise to the present petition are that respondent No, 1 was registered as Workers' Union for Stores and Workshop of the Irrigation Tubewell Workers while the petitioner was registered as a trade union for workers employed in the South and North Divisions, Sheikhupura as well as workers employed in Stores and Workshop. The respondent No, 1 moved the respondent No, 2 through an application under section 22(1) of I.R.O. For its appointment as a CBA. The respondent accordingly issued the impugned certificate dated 19-11-1985 declaring it as a CBA. The grievance of the petitioner is that since some of the employees of Store and Workshop were also its members, therefore, it will also deemed to be a trade union catering needs of the employees of Stores and Workshop as well and as such the application of respondent No, 1 under subsection (1) of section 22 was misconceived and it was wrongly and illegally declared as CBA. The petition was admitted to regular hearing and notices were issued to the respondents. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are represented.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the petition argued that since some of the employees working in the Stores and Workshop of Scarp I were its members, therefore, it will be deemed to be a union also in respect of Stores and Workshop. The respondent No, 1 should have moved application under subsection (2) of section 22 and the trade union, which was successful in the secret ballot was to be appointed as CBA. The arguments are concluded with the submission that the whole exercise was illegal and mala fide. The purpose was to illegally install respondent No, 1 as CBA. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the argument has referred to the judgment of this Court in the case of Grindlays Bank Employees Union v. Regd. Trade Unions, Lahore 1980 PLC 800(1).
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No, 1 has argued that since the petitioner was union registered in respect of South and North Divisions, Sheikhupura which came into existence on account of split up of Scarp I. It is, added that petitioner cannot be deemed to be union representing workers of Stores and Workshop. The arguments are summed up with the submission that respondent No, 1 was rightly and legally appointed as CBA and there is nothing wrong with the order of respondent No,
2. The learned counsel in this behalf has referred to judgments in the cases of Workers Front Habib Bank Ltd. v. Registrar of Trade Union, Multan 1989 PLC 969 and also the judgment of Grindlays Bank Employees Union.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, gone through the record and precedent cases. The admitted position is that originally petitioner and respondent were two rival unions catering the needs of workers employed in Scarp-I. Both of these were registered with respondent No,
2. The scarp was split up into three parts, namely, Stores and Workshop, XEN South Division and XEN North Division, Sheikhupura. The respondent No, 1 after this division got itself registered exclusively for the Stores and Workshops while the petitioner had a membership in all the three set ups. The question for determination is whether the petitioner is also deemed to be a Union or respondent No, 1 alone is the trade union in respect of Stores and Workshop? The respondent No, 2 was directed to submit a report as to the factual position. He submitted that 360 workers claimed membership in all and at least 36 members of the petitioner union are employed in Stores and Workshop Division. This 'report has not been controverted, therefore, the petitioner is to be treated as a union for all the three divisions. Conversely speaking the petitioner is also to be treated trade union for employees of Stores and Workshop. I am fortified in my view by the judgment of my learned brother Khalil-ur-Rehman Khan, J. In Grindlays Bank Employees Union ibid. It is interesting that both the parties relied on this judgment. In the precedent case, the petitioner union was registered for Loyds Branch and was certified by the Registrar of Trade Unions as CBA and thereafter without decertifying the petitioner he proceeded to certify respondent No, 2 as well a collective bargaining agent. The second certificate was challenged by the petitioner. This Court after examining the provisions and earlier case concluded that the Registrar was bound to follow procedure laid down in section 22(2) of the Ordinance. The natural consequence of this finding is that application under section 22(1) was misconceived because that section is applicable when there is only one registered trade union for an establishment.
' The result is that this petition is allowed with costs and proceedings before respondent No, 2 initiated by respondent No, 1 including the impugned, certificate dated 19-11-1985 are declared illegal and of no legal consequence. This order, however, shall not bar any fresh proceedings in accordance with law.