1. ORDER Khuda Bakhsh A. Kazi (Chairman).---On 19th October 1972 the above- named applicants (Management) filed an application under section 34 of I. R. O., 1969 against the above-named respondents (Workers' Union and Employees' Union) in this Court. In their applications the applicants have prayed that 127 persons whose names appeared in the list Annexure *A' were not in the employment of the applicants within the meaning of section 22(5) of 1. R. O., 1969 and the opponents be directed to withdraw their names from the list and exclude their names and the Opponent No. 1 be restrained from taking part in the election on the basis of the list supplied by them and further restrained from treating all the 127 persons included in the list as persons employed with the applicants. Alongwith the main applications. Misc. Application No. 123/72 under Order XXXIX, rule 1, C. P. C. was filed on behalf of the applicants wherein it was prayed that temporary injunction be issued restraining respondent No. 1 from taking part in the referendum fixed by the Registrar on 21st October 1972, or any subsequent date by treating any of the persons mentioned in the list Annexure *A* as employees of the applicants and duly qualified voters within the meaning of section 22(5) of I. R. O., 1969. This application was supported by an affidavit of Shafique Ahmad Bryant, Manager of the applicant-Company. Since the matter was of urgent nature an order maintaining status quo with notice to the other side, was passed by this Court on 19th October 1972. On 20th October 1972, Misc. Application No. 124/72 under Order XXXIX, rule 4, C. P.
2. C. was filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 for vacating the status quo order dated 19th October 1972.
3. This application was supported by affidavit of Shaukat Ali, General Secretary of respondent No. 1. I am thus disposing off both these applications each under Order XXXIX, rule 1, C. P. C. and under Order XXXIX, rule 4, C. P. C. by this single order. The case of the applicants as disclosed in the application and in accompanying affidavit is that the Registrar of Trade Unions, Karachi was moved to exclude the names of 127 persons named in the list Annexure 'A* to the main application but he had refused to do so and in spite of the civil suit now pending, he had fixed 21st October 1972 for holding election on the basis of list supplied by Opponent No. 1. Their case is that great prejudice would be caused to the applicants if the respondent No. 1 was not restrained from participating in the said referendum fixed on 21st October 1972. The case of the respondent No. 1 as disclosed in the application under Order XXXIX, rule 4, C. P. C. and in the accompanying affidavit is that the determination of the Collective Bargaining Agent by way of referendum to be held by Registrar qf Trade Unions, was a secured right of the Trade Unions only and the Management had no right whatsoever to interfere with the said determination. According to them the Management had adopted malacious tactics in furtherance of unfair labour practice to victimise the members of the respondent-Union and to deprive the respondent-Union to contest the referendum. The Management victimised 127 workers comprising of the members and two office-bearers of the respondent-Union who had been ousted from the service illegally and in a designed manner. The concerned workers had preferred individual applications under section 34 of I. R. O. 1969 which were pending in this Court. They have then explained as to how the Management was interfering and trying to halt the referendum being held by the Registrar of Trade Unions. Discussing the legal aspect of the case they contend that the Labour Court had limited authority under I. R. O., 1969 and it could not assume the jurisdiction which has been conferred under the same I. R. O., 1969 on the Register of Trade Unions. It is said that the applicant-Management had no secured right under any law to interfere with the determination of the Collective Bargaining Agent and as such the application under Order XXXLX, rule 1, C. P. C., was barred by law. It is further said that the subject matter of the applications did not constitute an industrial dispute and hence this Court could not exercise the jurisdiction of civil Court within the contemplation of I. R. O., 1969. I have heard the learned Representatives of the parties at a very great length on these two applications. The case of the applicants as disclosed above is that the Registrar of Trade Unions in spite of their request had not excluded the names of 127 persons who were no longer in the employment of the applicants.
4. The respondent No. 1 on the other hand alleges victimisation of these 127 persons of the respondent-Union of whom including the members and two office-bearers of the respondent- Union had been ousted from service by the Management for which they had individually filed application under section 34 of I. R. O., 1969 which were pending adjudication in this Court. They have also raised various legal objections on the maintainability of the said application. I have read the applications supported by the respective affidavit. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned Representatives of the parties. As a matter of fact section 22 of I. R. O., 1969 prescribed the procedure under which the Collective Bargaining Agent is to be determined. It is the duty of the Registrar of Trade Unions under subsection (9) of section 22 of I. R. O., 1969, to determine the Collective Bargaining Agent in the manner prescribed in that subsection. The Management i.e, the employers had to submit the list of all the workers employed in the establishment excluding those whose period of employment in the establishment was less than three months and they had to give particulars of workers as prescribed in subsection (4) of section 22 of I. R. O., 1969. It is further required of the employers in this behalf to provide such facilities for verification of the lists submitted by them and the Trade Unions as the Registrar may require. In an , the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi has held that the Labour Court has a limited authority under the provisions of I. R. O., 1969. It could not assume the jurisdiction which had been conferred upon under the I.R.O., 1969 on the Registrar of Trade Unions. These are two distinct authorities under the Ordinance. They could not perform the duties conferred on the other.*' In the instant case the determination of the Collective Bargaining Agent is vested in the Registrar of Trade Unions under section 22 of I. R. O., 1969. Under these circumstances it would neither be just nor proper to interfere with the functions which are vested in the Registrar under the said I. R. O., 1969. Accordingly I hold that the present application under Order XXXIX, rule 1, C. P. C. filed on behalf of the employers (applicants) merits no consideration. Consequently I vacate the order of status quo passed on 19th October 1972 and dismiss application under Order XXXIX, rule 1, C. P. C. without costs. This disposes off the application under Order XXXIX, rule 4, C. P. C. filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1.