' The petitioner is a Trade Union registered in the name of Employees Union and is aggrieved of order, dated 19-1-1995, of Registrar Trade Unions, Bahawalpur Region, Bahawalpur, respondent No, 1 whereby the petitioner's application for holding referendum has been rejected.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also gone through the reply submitted on behalf of the Registrar, Trade Unions, Bahawalpur Region, Bahawalpur.
3. The facts in brief are that the petitioner-Trade Union was constituted in 1976 and was registered in the same year vide registered Certificate No, 501, dated 9-2-1976 issued by respondent No, 1 and on the application of the petitioner' in 1976, under section 22 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for holding a referendum, the Registrar Trade Union certified the petitioner/union as Collective Bargaining Agent under section 22(1) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 as it was the only Trade Union in the establishment i,e, Adam Sugar Mills Ltd., Chishtian and the petitioner remained as Collective Bargaining Agent till 1985. In 1985 on the application, of the Mazdoor Ittfaq Union/respondent No, 2 for holding of referendum, elections were held in which respondent No, 2 came out as winner and under the law respondent No, 2 was certified as Collective Bargaining Agent from 1985 to 1987. In 1987, on winning the elections, the petitioner-union was certified as Collective Bargaining Agent from 1987 to 1989 and then again it was declared as Collective Bargaining Agent by respondent No, 1 from 1989 to 1991. In 1992 respondent No, 2 won the election and was declared as Collective Bargaining Agent from 1992 to 1994. On 30-11-1994 the petitioner- union preferred an application under section 22 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for holding a referendum according to law within 15 days. Respondent No, 1 on the receipt of the petitioner's application, wrote letters on 5-12-1994 to the other two trade unions in the field i,e, respondents Nos.2 and 3, informing them of the petitioner's application, dated 30-11-1994, and asked them to inform him in writing till 14-12-1994 of their desire of contesting the referendum. They were also directed to forward a list of the members of their respective unions stating their serial numbers, names, parentage, section, department, place of posting ticket number and date of becoming the members of their unions. It was further stated in the letters that if no reply is received from them till 14-12-1994 it may be presumed that the addresses are not desirous of contesting referendum and a meeting was fixed on 14-12-1994 at 10-00 a.m. In the office of respondent No, 1 to chalk out the details of the referendum and the office-bearers of the trade unions were asked to attend the meetings. As no date had been fixed for holding of the referendum on the application of the petitioner, the petitioners instituted Writ Petition No, 2758 of 1994 seeking a direction to respondent No, 1 to hold the referendum, immediately which was dismissed as not pressed on 19- 3-1995 after the institution of the present writ petition. During the pendency of the abovesaid writ petition respondent No, 1 had passed the impugned order, dated 19-1-1995, rejecting the petitioner's application, dated 30-11-1994, on the ground that petitioner has failed to prove 1/3rd membership of the total strength of Adam' Sugar Mills Ltd., Chishtian as required under section 22(2) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Hence this present Constitutional petition.
4. This petition was admitted to regular hearing on 22-1-1995 and on 19-3-1995 when the application for temporary injunction came up for hearing a direction was issued for the hearing of the writ petition itself on 28-3-1995. On that date i,e, 28-3-1995, to resolve a factual controversy, all the parties agreed that they have no objection to the holding of the fresh inquiry by the Registrar himself to determine as to whether the petitioner has 1/3rd membership of the total strength of the establishment Or not. In view of the agreement of the parties, respondent No, 1/Registrar, Trade Unions, Bahawalpur Region, Bahawalpur was directed to hold fresh inquiry, personally, to determine the abovesaid issue on 30-3-1995, outside the gate of the establishment and it was also directed that the office-bearers of the petitioner's union shall be allowed to be present at the time of the holding of this inquiry and shall not be allowed to be harassed in any manner by the members of the other trade unions as it was alleged that the office-bearers of the petitioner were being harassed and was apprehended that they will not be allowed to be present at the time of the holding of the inquiry and the Registrar Trade Unions was directed to submit his report is this Court on 3-4-1995 in regard to the result of the inquiry to be conducted by him on 30-3-1995. On 3-4- 1995 the Registrar Trade Unions submitted a detailed report explaining the reasons as to why he was not able to conduct the inquiry on 30-3-1995 as directed and levelled certain allegations against the attitude of the petitioner. On the other hand, the petitioner also levelled allegations against the Registrar Trade Unions to the effect that he was not ready to hold impartial inquiry as he was under the influence of the present Collective Bargaining Agent and learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that respondent No, 1 be directed to hold the inquiry through secret ballot to determine as to whether the petitioner had 1/3rd membership of the total strength of the establishment or not. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the other trade unions i,e, respondents Nos.2 and 3. Did not raise any objection to the holding of the inquiry through secret ballot but submitted that only those employees may be allowed to participate in the ballot which were named in the list supplied by the petitioner to the Registrar Trade Unions of its members on 15-9-1994. The objection of the respondents was overruled and the Registrar/respondent No, 1 was directed to hold the inquiry on 5-4-1995 through secret ballot to determine as to whether the petitioner had 1/3rd membership of the total strength of the establishment or not and to submit his report today i,e, 6-4-1995 and the main petition was also ordered to be fixed for hearing for today.
5. The Registrar Trade Unions, Bahawalpur Region, Bahawalpur/respondent No, 1 submitted his report today. According to which, in compliance with the above order of this Court he held a meeting of the employees' union/petitioner and the management of Adam Sugar Mills, Chishtian/respondent No, 3 on 3-4-1995 at 7-00 pm to chalk out the mode of inquiry through secret ballot and secret ballot was conducted on 5-4-1995 from 8-00 a.m.. To 6-00 a.m. In which 226 workers of establishment/respondent No, 3 polled their votes as members of petitioner-trade union. The total strength of Adam Sugar Mills, Chishtian on 3-4-1995 is reported to be 1169 workers.
An attested photostat copy of the certificate of the General Manager, Adam Sugar Mills, Chishtian, to this effect is also attached as annexure to this report and in view of the above inquiry conducted by respondent No, 1 it is held by him that the petitioner has failed to obtain 1/3rd votes of the total strength of Adam Sugar Mills Ltd., Chishtian.
6. The abovementioned shows that petitioner does not have 1/3rd membership of the total strength of the establishment which establishes that at the time when the petitioner's application was rejected by respondent No, 1 on 19-1-1995 respondent No, 1 was not wrong in declaring that the petitioner had failed on its part to prove its 1/3rd membership of the total strength of Adam Sugar Mills Ltd., Chishtian. Learned counsel for the petitioner now assails the order of respondent No, 1 on the ground that the petitioner's application under section 22 for holding referendum cannot be rejected even if petitioner fails to establish that it did not have actual 1/3rd membership of the total employees of the establishment. In support of this argument it is submitted that under the provisions of section 22 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 respondent No,1 could only verify the membership of the union demanding a referendum to the effect that it has 1/3rd of the employees as its members and at the time of filing the annual return on 15-9-1994 the petitioner had supplied the list of 500 employees as its members and the same was approved by respondent No, 1, which is more than 1/3rd of the total employees of the establishment and this is sufficient for the purposes of section 22 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The contentions raised are untenable and totally misconceived. This Court in its judgment, dated 9-10-1991, in Writ Petition No, 867 of 1991/BWP rejected this argument. The above said decision also relates to the similar dispute between the same parties. However, at that time the petitioner was the Collective Bargaining Agent and the writ petition had been instituted by respondent No, 2 and it was held that "perusal of subsection (2) of section 22 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 clearly states that the referendum shall be ordered after the verification of the fact that the union demanding a referendum was at least 1/3rd of workmen of the establishment in question as its members, therefore, to argue that the verification shall not be carried out by an inquiry to verify the actual membership of the union in question is to negate and thus fly in the face of the obvious meaning of verification." I am in total agreement of the interpretation of the section 22(2) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, made by this Court in the above said judgment.
7. For the reasons mentioned above, this writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.