' The petitioners through this Constitutional petition have taken exception to the orders dated 1-9- 1993 and 31-1-1995 passed respectively by the Single Member and Full Bench of N.I.R.C. Declaring the offices and establishments of House Building Finance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as `H.B.F.C.') including their head office excluding those parts which do not come within the purview of Industrial Relation Ordinance, 1969 as one Collective Bargaining Unit (hereinafter referred to as `C.B.U.') with a direction that all the registered trade unions with the Provincial Registrar of Trade Union or with the N.I.R.C. To amend their Constitution accordingly through opening their membership to the workers employed in all the establishments throughout Pakistan. A further direction was made that the proceedings for holding of collective bargaining agent already pending before the Commission shall be resumed after the expiry of one month of amendment of the registration.
2. Facts briefly are that an application was made under section 22-EE of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 by different unions of the establishment seeking declaration making prayer that the entire H.B.F.C. Establishment be declared as one C.B.U. This application was contested and the Member NIRC vide his order dated 1st of September, 1993 granted the prayer and declared entire H.B.F.C. Establishment as one C.B.U. The petitioners filed an appeal which was dismissed by a Full Bench of N.I.R.C. On 31-1-1995. Hence, this Constitutional petition.
' I have considered the contentions and have gone through the documents appended with this petition. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the second application was hit by the principle of res judicata is devoid of any force. It is to be appreciated that the earlier Application No,19(2)/88 for determining H.B.F.C. As one C.B.U. Was dismissed on 8-8-1989 mainly on the ground that the majority of the members of the union were not in support of this stance. It was held that the view/interest of the minority cannot be thrust upon the majority. Furthermore, the parties were not same in the earlier round of litigation and the present cause of action is totally different. I am further fortified in this respect by the observation of a Division Bench of Karachi where these very orders were impugned through C.P. No,D-652/95 which was dismissed in limine on 16-51995. Learned Division Bench on the issue of res judicata held as under:- "The first argument of learned counsel of the petitioner is that M/s. House Building Finance Corporation Workers Union had filed an application in the past (Case No,19(2)/88) praying for the creation of one Collective Bargaining Unit for all the establishments for the whole of Pakistan but it was rejected vide order dated 8-8-1989 (Annexure `A/1") and therefore fresh application to the same effect (Case No,19(6)/92) was barred under the principle of res judicata and learned Single Bench should rather have dismissed it instead of allowing it vide order Annexure 'B'. We agree with the learned counsel of respondents Nos. 2 to 4 that there is no force in this contention. Adjudication under section 22-EE is not enternal and for all times to come and as would appear from the proviso to clause (c) of section 22-EE(1) read with section 22(10) a fresh application after two years is competent under law. Besides, it appears that this objection of res judicata was merely raised for the sake of argument because the petitioner had himself moved a similar application before N.I.R.C. Under section 22-EE, being Case No,19(03)/92-K. The petitioner Union would not have moved that, application if it was of the view that it could not have been filed on the principle of res judicata. That application was withdrawn by the petitioner Union on 13-9-1992 and a copy of the withdrawal order has been placed on record by the respondents. I would therefore reject this objection."
4. The other ground of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the application was not filed properly earlier in the case of petitioner No,1 who was applicant No,2 in earlier Application No,19(2)/88 made under section 22-EE of I.R.O., 1969 as the same was filed through its Chairman who was not competent under the Constitution of the Union. This agreement too has got no force as I have noticed that the President of the Union who under the Constitution was empowered to sign the legal documents, power of attorneys and other case documents in N.I.R.C., endorsed the action of the Chairman in black and white which the learned Single Member N.I.R.C. Had reproduced in his order. The endorsement of the President is in the following terms:- "I have read carefully the applications and I am satisfied with the contentions of the same and I am of the view that one C.B.U. Should have been declared immediately in the entire establishment of House Building Finance Corporation at all/entire Pakistan Level."
' That all acts and deeds of Chairman of H.B.F.C. Staff Union of Pakistan (C.BA.) Sindh and Balochistan till date and in future in the above titled case may kindly be treated of mine."
' The third argument of the learned counsel that most of the terms and conditions of the employees of H.B.F.C. Are regulated by the award of the Wage Commission, as such, there is no necessity of having C.B.U. Is also devoid of any force, firstly on the ground that petitioner No,1 himself being C.BA. Had given charter of demands signed two settlements in spite of award and secondly apart from the Wage Commission Award there are many matters which are left to be settled, as such, this argument cannot come into the way of holding one C.B.U. It is also notice that at many places the number of employees are negligible, as such, their demands the requirements can best be satisfied looked after by the appointment of one C.B.U. As Head Office of the H.B.F.C. Is situated at Karachi and most of the matters are being dealt over there. The learned Single Member as well as the Full Bench have discussed all these issues in detail and have come to a conclusion that all the establishments of H.B.F.C. Throughout Pakistan shall form one C.B.U. Which act would be in the interest of employees. Learned counsel for the petitioners have failed to point out any misreading or jurisdictional defect calling for interference in this matter in the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction. Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.