1. KAMAL MANSOOR ALAM, J: --By this judgment we propose to dispose of the following 5 Constitutional petitions which involve common question of facts and law: C.P. No. D-107/91, C.P. No. D-146/91, C.P. No. D-171/91, C.P. No. D-178/91 and C.P. No. D-190/91.
2. The petitioner in all these petitions claims to be independent contractor having been employed by the Mari Gas Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as Gas Company) to undertake the security arrangement of the various wells of the Gas Company. It is stated that in all there are 12 such contractors, including the petitioner and each one of them is independent of the other. The respondent No. 1 in each of these petitions is the registered trade union by the name of "Mari Gas Co. Ltd. Contractors Mazdoor Union" comprising the employees of all the said 12 contractors, including the petitioners, allegedly employed as Chowkidars at the Gas Company: In all these petitions the petitioners have challenged the registration of the respondent No. 1 union by the respondent No. 2, who is the Registrar of Trade Unions, Hyderabad, on identical grounds.
3. Mr. Shabbir Ahmed Awan, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the five petitioners and Gas Company entered into five separate agreements, all dated 1-11-1990, whereby each of the petitioners was engaged as an independent contractor, to look after the security of a specified number of wells assigned to it. He contended that about 15 Chowkidars were employed by each of the contractors for undertaking the security of the wells assigned to him under the agreement. As each of the contractors had his own separate establishment independent of others the Chowkidars employed by a contractor continued to be his exclusive employees having no connection either with the Gas Company or other contractors. However, he stated that all the employees of the 12 independent contractors working at the Gas Company formed the respondent No. 1 trade union which the respondent No. 2 registered. According to the counsel, by virtue of the sections 6 and 7 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as to the I.R.O.), one trade union representing the workers of more than one establishment can be formed only if such establishments are owned by the same employer and therefore in the present case where the 12 contractors were different legal entities their employees could not have joined hands to form a single trade union and the respondent No. 2 could not have registered such trade union as a body representing all these employees of the various contractors. In support of his contention the counsel placed reliance on the case of Messrs A.K. Khan & Sons (Pvt.) Ltd. And 22 others v. The Registrar of Trade Unions, Karachi and 2 others reported in 1991 PLC 846. In that case while dealing with the relation between the Dock Workers and the Stevedores the learned Judge observed: "The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that since the petitioners are not the employers, the logical consequence would be that the Cleaning Workers cannot be termed as workers. There can be no cavil to the aforesaid logical consequence. It is, therefore, contended that the provisions of Industrial Relations Ordinance would not be attracted for the formation of respondent No. 2 also as they are not the workers or workmen as defined in the said Ordinance.
4. Section 6 of the said Ordinance provides the requirement of application to be submitted by a Trade Union for registration and section 7 provides that a Trade Union shall not be entitled to registration under the Ordinance unless, inter alia, all its members are workmen. As held above, the members of the respondent No. 2, are not the workers and workmen, they cannot form a Trade Union.
5. The learned counsel for respondent. No. 2, has contended that the petitioners are a `group of establishments' and, therefore, since the members of the respondent No. 2, have to work only for the aforesaid group of establishments, they ought to be deemed and treated as in employment of the petitioners. The argument is misconceived. The word `group of establishments' does not mean group of such establishments as are owned by different persons and each exists in its own right, but refers to establishments which are owned by the same legal entity, be a person, partnership concern or body corporate-as has been observed in the case of Muhammad Aqil v. Chairman, Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and others reported in 1974 PLC 194, with reference to section 22-EE of the Ordinance, that an employer may have more than one establishment, for example, offices in a commercial area, shops in business area, or one or more industrial units in an industrial area. To the above may be added the several institutions and organisations that have their branches and industrial units in more than one city, district or even province."
6. Mr. Muhammad Shafiq Qureshi, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 disputed the petitioner's contention on facts and on law. His first submission was that the petition suffered from laches, inasmuch as, the respondent No. 1, was registered as a trade union as far back as 2-9-1987 and was certified as Collective Bargaining Agent on 26-11-1987. He referred to the copies of certificates of registration and Collective Bargaining Agent filed along-with respondent's objections. He contended, that the petitioners were fully aware of the registration of the respondent-Union and of its having been declared a Collective Bargaining Agent and this is apparent from the copies of several agreements, filed with his objections, alleged to have been entered into between the respondent No. 1 and the various contractors, including the petitioners, in the presence of the Labour Directorate Officials. His next contention was that all the members of the respondent No. 1 were actually the employees of the Gas Company and were not working as chowkidars only but were performing other duties also such as that of driver, cleaner, operator, Mali, helper etc. He alleged that the petitioners and other so-called cotractors have been put up by the Gas Company as a camouflage to circumvent the provisions of the Labour Laws. He submitted that while the petitioners claimed to have entered into the agreement with the Gas Company on 1- 11-1990, the Chowkidars who are now being alleged to be the employees of the petitioners were already performing the same duties in the Gas Company since many years before the said agreement. Lastly, Mr. Shafique Qureshi disputed petitioner's contention that one trade union cannot represent the workers of several establishments unless all these establishments were owned by one employer.
7. From the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties it is obvious that these petitions involve such vital questions of disputed facts, as the status of the petitioners/contractors and the affected employees, the actual employer of these employees, nature of duties of the employees, their period of employment, their relationship with the petitioner and the Gas Company, etc., without determination of which it will not be possible to consider all the aspects necessary for examining the legality of the registration of the respondent No. 1 Union.
8. The petitions are liable to be disposed of on the above grounds that we propose to take up twp other points, one relating to the plea of laches raised by the counsel for respondent No. 1 and the other regarding registration of a trade union representing the workers of several independent establishments, raised by the counsel for the petitioner.
9. It was submitted by the respondent's counsel that the respondent No-1 was registered on 2-9-1987 which was in the knowledge of all the so-called contractors including the petitioner, yet they failed to take action for five years and therefore cannot now be allowed to challenge that action in these petitions. It appears that there is no dispute that the respondent No. 1 was registered on 2-9-1987.
10. That being so, the petitions filed in April/May, 1991 are undoubtedly much too belated, moreso when the petitioners had knowledge of such registration. As such we agree; that the petitions suffer from laches and are liable to be dismissed on that account too.
11. Coming now to the contention of the petitioner's counsel that, a trade union seeking to represent the workers of several establishments cannot be formed or registered unless all these establishments are owned by the same employer, we may First refer to the definition of `trade union' given in clause (xxvi) of section 2 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the I.R.O.) which reads as follows:-- " `Trade Union' means any combination of workmen or employers framed primarily for the purpose of regulating the relations between workmen and employers or workmen and workmen or employers and employers or for imposing restrictive conditions on the conduct of any trade or business and includes a federation of two or more trade unions,"
12. There is nothing in the above definition to show that a trade union representing the employees of more than one establishment cannot be formed. Then under section 3 of the I.R.O. The workers, without any restriction as to number of establishments, are entitled to establish and join trade union of their choosing. Thereafter, come sections 6 and 7 of the I.R.O. Relating to application for registration and registration of trade unions and these sections clearly contemplate registration of a trade union representing the workers of group of establishments'. A reference in this regard may be made to clauses (iv-a) and (iv-b) of section 6 and clause (d) of subsection (1) of suction 7 and clauses (a) and (b) of subsection (2) of that section. With regard these provisions the contention of the petitioner's counsel was that the reference to the `group of establishments' therein related to such group of establishments as were owned by the same employer and does not include several separate and independent establishments. We find no reason to give such limited scope to the term. It appears to us that the expression `group of establishments' used in these sections is of wide connotation and includes independent establishments. The only restriction seems to be that mentioned 11, clauses (a) and (b) of subsection (2) of section 7 namely, the members of the union should be workers employed in the industry with which the union is connected and at least one- fifth of the workers employed in the group of establishments are its members. A look at section 22 of the I.R.O. Would also show that the law contemplates a union representing workers of establishments of more than one employer. Accordingly, we find ourselves unable to agree with the contention of Mr. Shabbir Ahmed Awan that a trade union representing the workers of group of establishments can be registered only if the establishments in the group are owned by or belong to the same employer.
13. The upshot of the above discussion is that we find no merit in these Petitions and dismiss the same with costs.