JUDGMENT The present petition has been filed in the following circumstances :
1. The petitioner R. B.
Avari & Co., Ltd. owns a concern known as "Winner Bar" on Frere Street, Karachi, likewise respondents "Paris Bar" and "Jamshed Bar", are also similar concerns dealing in the trade of sale of liquor. All-Karachi Liquor an4 Wine Workers' Union (respondent No. 1) is a registered Trade Union, the certificate of registration having been granted by the Registrar for such purposes appointed under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance. The list of concerns carrying on the trade of sale of liquor has been produced by the petitioner. The respondent is shown to have total membership of 111 out of 180 workmen employed in 25 establishments carrying on such trade. Such list includes the names of the establishments of the petitioner as well as respondents "Paris Bar" and "Jamshed Bar".
2. On 28-5-1972, respondent- Union served a notice on the petitioner as well as the respondents "Paris Bar" and "Jamshed Bar" under section 26-A of the Ordinance inviting them to negotiate on the demands of the workmen employed in these establishments. The notice obviously was given by the Union in the capacity of Collective Bargaining Agent. It seems the petitioner and respondents "Paris Bar" and "Jamshed Bar" did not reply, so that a second notice under section 26 (3) of the Ordinance was given by the respondent-Union threatening a strike. Such notice was given by the respondent-Unions to several other bars, whom the Union purported to represent as Collective Bargaining Agents but such other Bars are not parties to this petition. Since the petitioner took no notice even of this second notice, the respondent-Union filed an application before the Sind Labour Court No. 5, Karachi, requesting for adjudication of the dispute. The application was resisted by the petitioner (who was a respondent before the Labour Court) who raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the proceedings under section 32-A of the Ordinance on the ground that the respondent-Union was not a Collective Bargaining Agent nor the legally constituted Union as to initiate the proceedings. The Labour Court was persuaded to deal with the preliminary objection the first instance and decided the said objection in favour of the respondent- Union, holding that within the meaning of section 22 of the Ordinance, the respondent-Union could function as Collective Bargaining Agent of more than one establishment, because such establishments fell within a "group" within the meaning of section 22 (1) of the Ordinance. It is this determination of the controversy which has resulted in the filing of this petition.
3. I have heard Mr. Sharaf Faridi for the petitioner and Mr. M. Shafi for the respondent-Union. Mr. Saleern Akhtar for respondent "Paris Bar** has adopted the stand taken by the petitioner. The remaining respondents have not appeared to oppose the petition.
4. It seems that the petitioner in the preliminary objections, had raised two- fold grounds before the Labour Court. The first was that the respondent-Union was not a legally constituted Trade Union and the second was that the respondent-Union could not represent more tht as Collective Bargaining Agent, without registration as a Federation of Trade Unions under section 20 of the Ordinance. When the case came up for hearing before me the admitted position on facts, was that the respondent-Union had been registered as a single Trade.Union of the employees of several establishments including the petitioner's "Winner Bar", and respondents "Paris" and "Jamshed Bar". There is no rival Union. On pointing out to Mr. Sharaf Faridi the learned Advocate for petitioner, that the certificate of registration having been granted by the Registrar, an objection in regard to the validity of the certificate could scarcely be agitated in the absence of the Registrar being a party to the petition, the learned Advocate has confined his submissions only to the other aspect of the case viz. that as a Trade Union, without registration as a Federation the respondent-Union could not act as Collective Bargaining Agent of more than one establishment.
The learned Advocate has however argued before me that in such provision of the Ordinance where reference is made to a "group of establishments", the reference is to such group as is composed of workmen employed by a single employer or owner who may be having diverse or different establishments. The interpretation of the words "group of establishments" is sought to be limited to such establishments as have a single owner or Management or employer.
4. The only point that falls for consideration then is as to whether a single Trade Union as the respondent- Union could represent as Collective Bargaining Agent, the workmen employed in similar industrial undertakings although owned by different employers. In such context it would be of benefit to consider some provisions of| the Ordinance. Under section 3(a) of the Ordinance, workers without distinc-U tion, have the right to establish or join 2 associations of their choice. The) provision reads as follows:-- "3. Trade Unions and freedom of association.--Subject to the provisions contained in this Ordinance:-- (a) workers, without distinction whatsoever shall have the right to establish and, subject only to the Rules of the Organisation concerned, to join association of their own choosing without previous authorisations." It would seem that the law confers upon the workmen a freedom of establishing or joining an association and I must state that a Trade Union also is an association, though in a restricted sense. There is no controversy on the point that the respondent-Union has enlisted membership of more than one-third of the workers whom it claims to represent. On the other hand section 2 (xxvi) of the Ordinance defines feTrade Union in the following words:-- "(xxvi)
"Trade Union" means any combination of workmen or employers formed primarily for the purpose of regulating the relations between workmen or employers and employers or for imposing restrictive conditions on the conduct of any trade or business and including a federation of two or more Trade Unions." The words "combination of workmen" are indeed significant and by no stretch of interpretation could a sense be imposed in the provision so as to mean that such "combination" must be of a single establishment If workers of various establishments do form a Trade l nion, the definitive provision cannot hit such a Union. While the word "establishment" is defined in section 2 (/jc) of the Ordinance to mean an office, firm, industrial unit etc. in which workmen are employed for the purpose of carrying on an "industry" which includes business or trade, section 6 deals with registration of a Trade Union of workmen of such establishment. Section 6 (a) (iv-a) of the Ordinance clearly seems to state that registration of a Trade Union as permissible in regard to a body or Union relating either to a single establishment or group of establishments. The provision reads as follows:-- "6.--(a) (iv-a) the name of the establishment or group of establishments, or the industry, as the case may be, to which the Trade Union relates; '* Although the provision relates to compliance of formalities in regard to a registration application, it is a clear pointer to an inference that the formation of a Union representing a group of establishments is permitted by the Ordinance. Such inference gains all the justification on a reading of section 22 (l) of the Ordinance which too speaks of a single registered Union for an establishment or a "group" of establishments On such view of the law it is absolutely clear to me that a single Trade Union could be formed to serve a single establishment or a group of establishments.
5. The next argument of Mr. Sharaf Faridi is that "group of establishments" should be understood to mean such a group as comprises of several establishments owned by a single owner or employer. The learned Advocate extended the argument in the context of the provisions of the Ordinance only by pointing out that the Ordinance contemplated formation of a Federation of Unions Unions under section 20, and, if the workmen of more than one establishment desired to form a part of joint Union they must form a Federation. He seemed to rely on the principle of law that a thing required to be done in a particular manner, could be done in that manner alone and all other modes of performance are forbidden. In regard to the concept of Federation being imparted in the case the argument of the leamed Advocate is completely misconceived. Section 20 (1) of the Ordinance is a complete answer. It reads as follows; -- "20. Registration of Federation of Trade Unions.--(1) Any two or more registered Trade Unions may, if their respective general bodies so resolve constitute a federation by executing an instrument of federation and apply for the registration of the Federation." The above-quoted provision definitely implies and contemplates the existence of Unions, independent and existing in their own right, before they could form a Federation. In the present case admittedly there is a single Union of workmen of the several Bars and there is no question of a Federation being formed. What is more that section 6 of the Ordinance itself contemplates formation of a Trade Union or a single Union representing a group ol establishments as distinct from formation of a Federation. The provisions of section 6 (a)0v-a) of the Ordinance relating to formation of a Union for a group of establishments has been reproduced in an earlier part of the judgment and section 6 (a) v) of the Ordinance dealing with formation of Federations is reproduced below:-- "6.--(PLD 1965 Kar. 625 (2)
PLD 1965 Lah. 729