JUDGMENT This is a second appeal from the order dated 16-11-1974 of Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Multan.
2. There were three registered Trade Unions functioning in the establishment of Municipal Committee, Multan. They were : Municipal Khakrob Mashki Union, Municipal Labour Union and Mashki Sweepers' Union, Multan. The Registrar, Trade Unions, Multan Region under the provisions of section 22 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, held secret ballot on 10-9-1974 for declaring Collective Bargaining Agent. Municipal Khakrob Mashki Union, Multan was declared Collective Bargaining Agent as it had secured highest number of votes. Aggrieved by that decision Mashki Sweepers' Union, Multan filed an appeal before the Labour Court, which dismissed the same on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Against that order the present appeal has been preferred by Maskhi Sweepers' Union, Multan on the ground that there has been violation of section 22(9)(e) of Industrial Relations Ordnance, 1969.
3. The first point which requires consideration is as to whether the appeal is competent. It is well established that right of appeal is a substantive right and not a mere right of procedure. 1 am fortified in this view by the judgment of the High Court in the case Mst. Maqsoodan Bibi v. Mst. Bhano (1). Article 175(2) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of (1) PL D 1965Lah. 183 Pakistan lays down that no Court shall have any jurisdiction save as is or may be conferred on it by the Constitution or by or under any law. In ihe present case neither the right of appeal against the order of the Registrar A declaring a Union Collective Bargaining Agent has been conferred by the Constitution or by any law in force.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, contended that the dismissal of a petition on the point of jurisdiction by the Labour Court is an award, which is appealable under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. If this proposition is correct, then it would lead to most peculiar results. For instance, if a petition under section 25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance,! 1969 is dismissed by a Labour Court on the point of jurisdiction, then itL would become an award which is contrary to law as it has been well! established that a decision on a petition under section 25-A is not an award.'
'The learned counsel for the appellant, however, relied on the judgment of the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal in the case Karachi M. R. S. Employees Union v. D. V. & C. E. (Navy) (1) wherein it was observed :-- "I have heard Ch. M. Maarif, for the appellant. He has placed reliance on my decision reported in Messrs Farhat Industries, Karachi v. Workers' Union in support of his contention that it has exclusive jurisdiction of the Registrar of Trade Unions to decide whether their Union is a 'Collective Bargaining Agent* or not. It is true that the position of law is so but in the present case the question is the interpretation of section 22(1) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance of 1969. The short question was as to whether the appellant which claimed to be the only Union and, therefore, the 'Collective Bargaining Agent' had l/3rd of the total number of workmen employed in the establishment or not. According to the learned Labour Court the appellant-Union failed to prove that they had one-third employees of the respondent as its members. The General Secretary of the Union, in his cross-examination, was unable to say that if any of its office-bearers was in the employment of Civil Service of Navy or not. He was unable to give the names of the employees of the respondent Branch of the Military who are members of the Union. He was not able to produce any list of its members to establish that it had one-third members of the respondent's workmen.
The learned Court had jurisdiction to interpret section 22(1) of the Ordinance, and rightly dismissed the case. The appeal is dismissed." (2) 1968 PLC 270 (1) 1974 PLC 256 With due respect I am unable to agree with the above decision, because how can the Labour Court interpret section 22(1) of the Ordinance when it had no jurisdiction whatever to entertain the petition. It is surprising that in the above judgment the learned Member of the Sind Appellate Tribunal had conceded that declaration by Registrar of Trade Unions to declare Collective Bargaining Agent was his exclusive jurisdiction and yet he (the learned Member) proceeded to hold that the Labour Court had jurisdiction to interpret section 22(1) of the Ordinance. The learned counsel for the appellant also relied on the judgment of the High Court in the case The Management of Municipal Committee, Mianwali v. The General Secretary, Municipal Muharrirs' Union and another (2), wherein it was held that a decision of the Industrial Court on the question of jurisdiction was an award and appeal against the same was competent, ln that case an industrial dispute was pending and the appellant had raised the question of jurisdiction which related to the dispute. In the instant case no industrial dispute was pending and, therefore, the above ruling is not applicable. Inj the entire Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 only that order of the Labour Court is described as an award which is given by the Labour Court afterjc adjudication of an industrial dispute under section 32.
Strictly speaking, therefore, an award is that which follows adjudication of an industrial dispute! under section 32 only.
5. The impugned order of the Labour Court is clearly not an award because it was not an adjudication of an industrial dispute under section 32 of the Ordinance.
6. In the result the appeal is not competent and is accordingly dismissed as such.