ORDER This is an appeal against the award dated 28-9-1973 of Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore. 2.
The Hosiery Workers' Union (Regd.), respondent, brought an industrial dispute under section 32(1-A) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 raising the following ten demands:-- (1) Attendance and service cards be provided to the workers. (2) Annual holidays be allowed to the workers with wages. t i (3) Festival holidays be allowed to the workers. (4) ln case the factory remained idle due to shortage of raw material the workers be paid full wages. (5) In case of termination of service of the workers either one month's notice be given to the concerned workers or in lieu thereof one month's wages be paid. (6) Under check-off system annually a sum of rupees l2 be deducted from the wages of workers and paid to the Union. (7) Bonus be paid to the workers equal to their two months' wages. (8) Sewing machines be provided by the Management. (9) Overtime at the rate of double the wages be paid to the workers who are made to work for more than 8 hours on any day.
(10) During the period consumed in the preparation of samples the workers be paid wages at the rate of Rs, 20 per day. Before the Labour Court only Demands Nos. 1, 5, 7 and 10 were argued.
Demand No. 1.--During the course of arguments before the Labour Court the parties agreed that instead of issuing attendance cards, Identity cards be issued. The Labour Court, thereupon, directed the Manager, M/s. Huma Hosiery, Gujranwala, appellant, to issue identity cards to every worker. Demand No. 5.--Was rejected by the Labour Court. Under Demand No. 7.--The Labour Court gave tbe award ordering the appellant to distribute the amount of Rs. 1,500 among the workers as bonus. Under Demand No. 10.--The Labour Court gave the award directing that in future the parties should settle the wages for the preparation of pattern or new samples and according to the said settlement wages be paid.
4. In appeal the Manager, M/s. Huma Hosiery, Gujranwala, appellant only challenged the award on Demand No. 7. The appellant not only challenged the award on merits but also raised tbe following two preliminary objections :-- (1) That the respondent-Union was not competent to file the petition under section 32(1-A) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 raising the Industrial Dispute because it was not validly and legally registered Union. (2) That the members of the respondent-Union are less than one-third of the total numbers of workers employed in 23 Hosiery factories and therefore did not fulfil the requirements of section 22(1) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Hence the respondent-Union was not a Collective Bargaining Agent and as such had no locus standi to raise the Industrial Dispute.
5. Preliminary Objection No. 7. --According to P. W. 1 Sikander Namdar Rathore, General Secretary of the respondent-Union, his Union- represented the workers of 23 Hosiery factories of Gujranwala including the Huma Hosiery Factory. The respondent-Union was registered on 28-2-1970. Its registration number is 36. Demand notice was served on 23-10-72 and op 1- 11-72 strike notice was issued which was served on the appellant on 2- 11-72. It was contended that the respondent-Union was not competent to file the petition under section 32(1-A) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 raising the industrial dispute because it was not validly and legally registered Union. According to the learned counsel for the appellant that on 28-2-70 when the respondent-Union was registered the provisions of section 7(i)
(d) had not been complied with. At that time the aforementioned section read as under:-- "Requirements for Registration.--A Trade Union shall not be entitled to registration under this Ordinance unless the constitution thereof, provides for the following matters, namely:-- (a)..................................... (*)............ -.............. (c) (d)The names of the persons forming the executive committee including the officers, of whom 75 per cent, shall be from amongst the workers actually engaged or employed in the establishment with which the Trade Union is connected and the manner of their election; (*)...................................... (/)........................ ($)..................................... (A)...........................
(/)....................................... " Section l(i)(d)t however, was amended by Ordinance XIX of 1970 which was enforced on 17-10-70. After amendment section l{i){d) reads as follows :-- "The number of persons forming the executive which shall not exceed the prescribed limit and shall include not less than 75 per cent, from amongst the workmen actually engaged or employed in the establishment or establishments or the industry from which the Trade Union has been formed." Thus it will be seen that before the amendment the persons forming the executive committee including the officers at least 75 per cent, had to be actually engaged or employed in the establishment. After amendment persons forming the executive committee including the officers at least 75 per cent, had to be actually engaged or employed in the establishment or establishments. According to P. W. 1, Sikandar Namdar Rathore, General Secretary of the respondent-Union, there were 21 office-holders of his Union out of which only one office-holder was employed in Huma Hosiery Factory. This! clearly is against the provisions of unamended section 7(i)(d) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, which was in force when the respondent-Union was registered. \a I, accordingly, uphold this preliminary objection and hold that! the respondent-Union was not competent to file the petition under1 section 32 (1-A) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 because it was not/ validly and legally registered Union.
6. Preliminary Objection No. 2.--The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the respondent-Union did not fulfil the requirements of section 22 (1) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Hence the said Union was not Collective Bargaining Agent and as such had no locus standi to raise the industrial dispute. The aforementioned section reads as follows :-- "Where there is only j;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 one-third of the total number of workmen employed in such establishment or group of establishments, be deemed to be Collective Bargaining Agent for such establishment or group.** The contention of the learned counsel of the appellant was that the members of the respondent-Union were less than one-third of the total number of workers employed in 23 hosiery factories in Gujranwala. This objection was taken by the appellant in the reply to the petition under section 32(t-A) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and therefore it was for the respondent-Union to meet this objection but this was not done. I, accordingly uphold this preliminary objection.
7. In view of the above it is not necessary to give a finding on the merits of the case. $. In the result I accept the appeal, set aside the award of the Court below and dismiss the petition filed by the respondent-Union under section 32(l-A) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 raising the industrial dispute.