' The petitioner, which is a trade union formed by the workers of B.P. Industries (Pvt.) Ltd., is aggrieved by granting of registration certificate dated 2-7-1990 to respondent No, 2 which is a rival union formed by the workers of the said establishment. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the decision of the Registrar to hold a referendum under section 22(2) of the I.R.O. At the instance of respondent No, 2, which, according to the petitioner, is not competent to seek referendum under the said provisions of law as it has less' than the required one-third of the total workman employed in the said establishment. .2. The petition has been resisted by respondent No, 2 on whose behalf Mr. Muhammad Salim Khan has argued the case before me. The Registrar, Trade Unions, Sindh (respondent No,1) has also filed his parawise comments. The contention of the said respondent is that the petitioner had originally been registered in connection with the establishment, known as B.P. Biscuit Factory, Palm Street, Karachi. Another Trade Union, namely, Comrade Labour Union was also registered in connection with the said establishment. On 27-5-1990 respondent No, 2 was formed as a union of workers in connection with the establishment, known as B.P. Industries (Pvt.) Ltd., S.I.T.E. Karachi and, therefore, although the said respondent had furnished a list of twelve workers at the time of filing the application for registration the same had been registered by respondent No, 1 as the first trade union of the workmen employed by M/s. B.P. Industries (Pvt.) Ltd., S.I.T.E. Karachi. It has nevertheless been admitted that respondent No, 1 had registered respondent No, 2 without holding an inquiry into the matter. It has also been admitted that an intimation in regard to the amendment of its constitution by the petitioner and change of its nomenclature as "B.P. Industries (Pvt.) Ltd.
Employees Trade Union" had been received by Directorate of Labour (Central Division) Block No, 7, Sindh Secretariat, Karachi, on 6-6-1990, but notwithstanding the same, the union was registered on 2-7-1990.
3. The main contention of Mr. Shahenshah Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner before me is, that, the respondent No, 1 failed to hold an inquiry before registration of the said union which was in clear contravention of section 7(2)(b) of the I.R.O. Although, there is no controversy on the point that if it had come to the notice of the Registrar that respondent No, 2 was a third union seeking registration, the said respondent could not seek registration without due compliance with the provisions of section 7(2)(b) of the I.R.O., but the contention of Mr. Muhammad Salim Khan is, that, the petitioner had itself failed to bring the relevant facts to the notice of the Registrar at the relevant time. The argument, in my opinion, has no merit because admittedly on 6-6-1990, the Directorate of Labour (West Division) had knowledge in regard to registration of the other two trade unions, namely, the petitioner as well as B.P. Industries Comrade Labour Union and, therefore, before granting registration certificate to the third union, i,e,, the second respondent in this case, it was imperative for the Registrar to hold a proper inquiry and find out whether the latter had as its members not less than one-fifth of the total number of workmen employed by the said establishment as required by section 7(2)(b). However, evidently, the Registrar failed to conduct such an inquiry before registering respondent No,
2. There appears to be no controversy on the point, that, if respondent No, 2 fails to meet the requirements of section 7(2)(h) of the I.R.0 the, holding of referendum at its instance would also be in contravention of the law notwithstanding the fact that the said respondent had subsequently submitted a list of ninety members to respondent No, 1, as has been shown by him in the parawise comments. Be that as it may, but I am, therefore, clearly of the view that respondent No, 1 has failed to act in the manner enjoined upon him by the law. .
4. In the result, this petition is allowed and granting of registration certificate and holding of the proposed referendum by the Registrar is held to be without lawful authority and the case is remanded to the Registrar for considering the application for registration of respondent No, 2 afresh. Needless to say that respondent No, 2 being third union registered in connection with the establishment of B.P. Industries (Pvt.) Ltd., it will have to meet the requirements of section 7(2)(h) of the I.R.O. The request made by respondent No, 2 for referendum can only be considered after the said respondent has been duly registered by the Registrar as a third Trade Union. The parties are left to bear their own costs.