DECISION ' This appeal from the. Order of the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No, IV at Karachi, on an application under section 32(1-A) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 arises in the following circumstances.
2. The appellants are the Collective Bargaining Agent of the respondents. Not long ago, another company by the name of Central Technologies (Pvt.) Limited had been set up in the premises of the respondents Messrs Cornpak 1. Invited. A wall had been erected to divide the building in two parts, but, it had a common door. The appellants had an apprehension that it is a sister concern and that there was a well-planned device to divert the funds of the respondents to the sister, company. The appellant had some other grievances of their own against the 'present respondents, but, a settlement was arrived at between the parties. However, by consent, the four demands pertaining to the affairs of Messrs Central Technologies referred to above, were excluded from the settlement and the appellants were told to seek their remedies from the proper forum if they so chose. These were Demands Nos, 42 to 45 of the Charter .Of Demands and are being detailed below:-- "Demand No, 42.--The benefits of all the demands shall also be given to all the members who are working on the machinery of the Central Technologies (Pvt.) Limited which have been taken on contract.
Demand No, 43.--Agreements/contracts executed with the Central Technologies (Pvt.) Ltd., be reviewed in consultation with the C.B.A. Union. Besides any fresh arrangements/agreements and contract with Central Technologies (Pvt.) Ltd., or any other company be made/executed with the consent of the C.BA. Union.
Demand No, 44.--The terms and conditions of the services of the workers employed in Central Technologies (Pvt.) Ltd., be brought into consonance with the terms and conditions of the services of the workmen employed in the respondents-company.
Demand No, 45.--The amount received in lieu of services offered, man power and equipment by the respondents-company to Central Technologies (Pvt.) Ltd., and United Technologies (Pvt.) Ltd., be determined and their dues recovered with the consent of the C.BA. Union."
3. The respondents in their written statement denied the contentions of the appellants and maintained that the two concerns had separate juristic entities and that there was only one Director who was common to them. This was substantiated by their witness, S.HA. Rizvi, who is the Sub-Divisional and Administration Manager. The learned ' Labour Court agreeing with the submissions of the respondents and for the reasons given by it dismissed the application, resulting in this' appeal.
4. The contention raised by Mr. S.P. Lodhi, the learned representative for the appellants was in the main what was detailed in the application. It was A submitted that the way in which the two Companies were being run was a clear pointer of the fact that it was a joint venture and conceived to deprive the workers of the company by way of the bonus and other benefits. He also made a grievance to the effect that the respondents were blowing hot and cold; admitting that they had used the machinery of the sister concern and departing from that stand when it suited them. They admitted that the employees of the sister concern had been engaged by them and again there was a summersault.
5. It was further urged that there was the movement of men and material from one part of the premises to the other and the whole thing appeared to be shady. They as the C.BA. With the rights given to them under section 2(xxvi) of the I.R.O., 1969, had every reason to regulate the relations between the workmen and the employers and to impose restriction on the conduct of their trade or business.
6. Mr. Mahmood A. Ghani, the learned representative for the respondents contended that the evidence brought on the record was sufficient to show that the two concerns had distinct and separate identities of their own. The respondents-company which is a public limited company is registered under the Factories Act also, as well as with the Chamber of Commerce and Industries, the Income-tax Department and other Agencies. The Central Technologies (Private) Limited is separately registered as a private limited company and the witness has also produced a certificate of incorporation. The record produced also showed that the respondents had seven Directors, whereas this Central Technologies (Private) Limited had three and there is only one Director common to these concerns. The latter company is also seaprately registered with the Chamber of Commerce and Industries and is separately assessed under the Income Tax Act. The certificates of incorporation have also been brought on the record. The fact that there was one common Director and even if there were to be more would not improve the case of the appellants any way.
7. He also contended that there was no change in the stand adopted by the respondents. The machinery installed by Central Technologies was lying idle at one stage and because these were of sophisticated nature, the respondents-Company decided to take advantage till their own machinery arrived from abroad. Now that the shipment had arrived and they had installed their own machinery even that had stopped. It was further urged that the door between the two portions was only for the sake of convenience so that fragile ampules could easily be moved from one part to the other. But, once the appellant had taken objection about the same, the door had been permanently closed and the material is taken by covering some distance by the road.
8. He further urged that the appellants were the C.B.A. Of the respondents and they were registered as such. That being the situation, they could not take up cudgels on behalf of the workers of the other concern whom they did not know as duly brought on the record. The workers of Messrs Technologies (Pvt.) Ltd., had shown no interest in the matter, nor they had appeared as witnesses on their behalf and therefore, it-cannot be said that they were willing to support the claim raised by the appellants.
9. It was further contended by Mr. Mahmood A. Ghani that the apprehension shown was in regard to the diversion of the funds, but, Ashraf Hussain, the General Secretary of the appellants who is the only witness on their behalf has no knowledge about the accounts maintained by the respondents and certainly no specific instance of any suspicious entries. It was, therefore, nothing but a figment of imagination. Any way the law did not permit them to intermeddle in the affairs of business. The rights given to the Trade Union under section 2(xxvi) of the I.R.O., 1969; would not empower them to assume responsibilities--the functions of the management. What they had embarked upon was = not an industrial dispute within the meaning of section 2(13) of the I.R.O., 1969. Reliance was sought on 2 cases namely, (1) B.OA.C. Karachi v. Airways Employees Union (B.OA.C. Branch), Karachi reported in 1961- PLC 234 and (2) Messrs Electric Lamp Manufacturers of Pakistan Ltd., Karachi through its General Manager v. Government of Pakistan and others reported in PLD 1978 Kar.
972.
10. I am satisfied that the conclusions reached by the learned Labour Court are not open to any exception. I would, therefore, dismiss the appeal.