1. DECISION This is an application under section 34 of I. R. O. filed by the Allied Labour Supply Worker's Union for the enforcement of its right to receive benefits of Cost of Living Allowance at the rate of Rs. 35 & 50 announced by the Government. The Union also claims statutory bonus under Standing Order 10-C to be paid to the workers on grounds that these benefits have been unduly withheld by the respondents. On the other hand it has been contended by the respondent that the application is not maintainable inasmuch as the applicant-Union not being a Collective Bargaining Agent is not entitled to represent the workers in their establishment. Furthermore they have already discharged their obligations under the law and there is nothing outstanding in respect of benefits of Cost of Living Allowance. Parties had also filed their Affidavits-in-evidence. The first point to be considered is whether the application filed by the petitioner Allied Labour Supply Workers' Union is maintainable. I have gone through the record to be able to examine this aspect of case. It is on the record that apart from the applicant-Union, there is another Union under the name and style of Karachi Railway Godies Labour Union of the workers of the respondents which was registered in 1961 and the Management not only recognized this Union as C. B. A. but had also entered into agreements from time to time. It is appropriate to mention that Godie Labour Union only recently raised the demands under section 26(1) ahd an agreement also was reached with the respondents which has been admitted in cross-examination by a worker named Nabi Bux who was the General Secretary of the Godies Workers' Union that the said agreement was properly arrived at between the parties though the terms of the said agreement have not been fully implemented. Thus by virtue of the fact that Godie Workers Union was recognised as C. B. A. by the Management, the said Union for all practical purposes has been acting as Collective Bargaining Agent in respect of the workers in the said establishment. It has been held by Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal in Indus Chemicals reported in 1972 L. L. C. 174 that where there are two Unions, and neither of them made an application for a referendum to the Registrar for the determination of a Collective Bargaining Agent, the Union which has been'* representing and holding discussions in respect of the demands and other matters, is the Union qualified to have the status of a C. B. A. I agree with the preposition laid down therein in particular as the applicant-Union was registered on 8th June 1974, and the question as to which of the two Unions was qualified to act as C. B. A. not having been resolved through a referendum under the law, the only presumption i? that the Union acting as such and recognized as C. B. A. by the Management is the only Collective Bargaining5 Ageot. The applicant Union thus not being a Collectve Bargaining Agent has no competence to espouse the cause of the workers in the establishment. As this goes to the very^root of the matter, I consider that it would be as well to determine tHe maintainability of the application itself. I, therefore, find that the application is not maintainable in law and is dismissed.