JUDGMENT This is an appeal against the award dated 3-6-1975 of Punjab Labour Court No. 3, Lyallpur.
2. Yousuf Javed, General Secretary, Bhatta Mazdoor Union, Lyallpur, respondent No. 1, raised an industrial dispute against the Management of 4 Brick Kilns, Lyallpur namely, Khurshid Bhatta, Gujjar Khan Bhatta, Maulvi Muhammad Hussain Bhatta and Haji Muhammad Abdullah Bhatta, appellants. Demand notice and strike-notice were given in the prescribed manner. Assistant Director, Labour Welfare (Conciliation), Lyallpur called KHURSH1D BHATTA V. MAZDOOR UNION (REGD.) (M. Jamil Asghar, Appellate Tribunal) f the appellants to participate in the conciliation proceedings but they did not appear before him. The Assistant Director then issued Failure Certificate. The respondents thereupon filed a petition under section 32(1-A) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for adjudication of 11 demands. The appellant | not only resisted the petition on merits but also raised a perliminary objection. The learned Labour Court rejected the preliminary objections and gave an award rejecting Demands Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 10 and accepting the remaining demand.
3. Aggrieved by the above award the appellants have preferred this appeal. 4.
The appellants reiterated 4 preliminary objections, one of them being that the respondent was not a legally constituted Collective Bargaining Agent and as such had no locus standi to move a petition under section 32(1-A) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. In this connection it may be mentioned that respondent No. 1 had applied to the Registrar, Trade Unions for issuance of a certificate an Collective Bargaining Agent, but he refused to issue the same, on the ground that the said Union could not be certified as Collective Barganing Agent within the meaining of subsection
(1) of section 22 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. He, however, advised him to invoke the jurisdiction of the National Industrial Relations Commission for such determination. When the matter came up before National Industrial Relations Commission, the Registrar of the said Commission sent letter Exh. P/A dated 3-4-1975 to the Director, Labour Welfare, Government of Punjab, which is to the effect:-- "It appears that a confusion has arisen due to the terms "industry- wise Trade Union". This term has been explained in explanation added to section 22-A, a perusal of which would reveal that the said expression refers to an industry-wise Trade Union membership of which extends to establishments in more than one province. Tne applicant-Union is a Union of Brick Kiln Industry but the membership of this Union is confined to a group of establishments which are situated within one district. Therefore, though it is a Union operating in one industry, it does not fall within the definition of industry-wise Trade. The applicant- union was therefore wrongly advised to approach the Commission for declaration under section 22(1) of the said Ordinance. Registrar, Trade Unions, Sargodha Region, Lyallpur was competent to dispose of this application of the applicant-Union. I am directed by the Chairman, National Industrial Relations Commission, Islamabad to request you to issue a circular to all the Regional Registrars Trade, Unions operating under your administrative control, to remove this misunderstanding." In spite of the above reply the Registrar of the Trade Unions did not register the respondent Union as Collective Bargaining Agent.
According to section 43 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 no industrial dispute shall be deemed to exist unless it has been raised in the prescribed manner by a Collective Bargaining Agent or an employer. The present industrial dispute as it is apparent, has not been raised by the Collective Bargaining Agent and, therefore, it cannot be deemed to exist. The learned Labour Court, however, in view of section 22(1) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 that the Registrar should have certified the respondent-Union as Collective Bargaining Agent proceeded to hold that it was competent to declare the said Union as Section 22(1) "Where there is only one registered Trade Union in an establishment | or a group of establishments, that Trade Union shall, if it has as its members not less than 1 /3rd of the total number of workmen employed in such establishment or a group of establishments upon an application made in this behalf be certified by the Registrar in the prescribed manner to be Collective Bargaining Agent for such establishment or group." This shows that it is the Registar, Trade Unions alone who has the power to certify a Union as Collective Bargaining Agent and not the Labour/Court. Article 175(2) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan lays down that no Court shall have any jurisdiction save is or to be conferred on him by the Constitution or by under any law. Under Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, Registrar of the Trade Unions alone has the power to declare a Union as Collective Bargaining Agent and no right of appeal is provided against his order refusing to certify the Union as Collective Bargaining Agent In view of the above the learned Labour Court was not competent to declare the respondent-Union as Collective Bargaining Agent. Thus it is clear that the instant industrial dispute was not raised by a Collective Bargaining Agent and as such it cannot be deemed to exist.
5. In the result I accept the appeal, set aside the award of the learned Labour Court and dismiss the petition under section 32(1-A) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.