The petitioner is a Union of workers, called the Mahmood Textile Mills Workers' Union, Muzaffargarh.
Its case is that it was formed on 21-7-1974 and submitted an application for registration to the Registrar of Trade Unions, Multan Region, Multan, on 26-7-1974, but instead of the Union being registered, the management (respondent No. 4) terminated the services of its office-bearers.
However, the Junior Labour Court, Multan, ordered their re-instatement in service, whereupon the management filed an appeal against the decision of the Junior Labour Court before the Punjab Labour Court No. 4, but the said appeal was dismissed on 29-3-1975.
2. In so far as the application submitted by the petitioner-Union for registration to the Registrar of Trade Unions was concerned, the same was declined by the Registrar, vide his letter dated 23-8- 1974, which was received by the petitioner-Union on 30th August 1974. A representation made by the petitioner-Union against the said decision was also rejected by the respondent Registrar of Trade Unions, whereupon the petitioner-Union moved the Punjab Labours Court, Multan, under section 8(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, for issuance of a direction to the Registrar of Trade Unions to register the petitioner-Union.
3. While this appeal was still pending, another Union of workers--- employed in the respondent Mills formed a Labour Union called the Pak Workers' Union, Mahmood Textile Mills Muzaffargarh (respondent No. 2) on 9-3-1975 and applied for registration as a Trade Union on 9-3-1975. Its registration was granted on 9-4-1975 by respondent No. 1. Similarly another Trade Union (re3pondent No. 3) entitled Inqalabi Mazdoor Union, Mahmood Textile Mills, Mahmoodabad, Muzaffargarh, was also formed and it applied for registration on 29-4-1975 and was granted the certificate of registration on 5-5-1975.
4. On 6-5-1975 an application was moved by Pak Workers' Union (respondent No. 2) under section 22(2) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, to hold a referendum to determine a Collective Bargaining Agent in relation to respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 1 called upon respondent No. 3 (Inqalabi Mazdoor Union) as to whether it was desirous to be a contestant in the secret ballot to be held for determining the Collective Bargaining Agent in relation to respondent No. 4 Mahmood Textile Mills Limited, and 13-5-1975 was the date fixed for the holding of the referendum. This last mentioned fact was stated in the Court during the course of the hearing before me.
5. Meanwhile, in pursuance of the petition under section 8(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, moved by the petitioner-Union before the Labour Court, the learned Labour Court directed respondent No. 1 to register the petitioner-Union vide its order dated 10-5-1975, as a result of which the Registrar, Trade Unions (respondent No. 1) granted registration to the I petitioner-Union and a certificate of registration was issued on 16-5-1975. Before this date, however, in connection with the referendum to be held for certifying the Collective Bargaining Agent, referred to in para. 4 above, respondent No. 3 decided to withdraw from the contest on 12-5-1975 and, accordingly, respondent No. 2 (Pak Workers' Union) was certified as the Collective Bargaining Agent for a period of to years under the provisions of subsection (9)(e) of section 22 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance.
6. It is relevant to mention here that the petitioner-Union had also submitted an application on 12- 5-1975 that it should be allowed to participate in the secret ballot to be held in connection with the certification of the Collective Bargaining Agent of respondent No. 4, but this request was rejected and the reasons for doing so are contained in the letter dated 24-5-1975, sent to the General Secretary of the petitioner-Union, which reads as follows: - ---This is to inform you that at the the of making application by Pak Workers' Union, Mahmood Textile Mills, Muzaffargarh for holding secret ballot on 6-5-1975 under section 22 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, only the registered Trade Unions were allowed to participate in the referendum.
The registration of Mahmood Textile Mills Workers' Union, Muzaffar--garh (petitioner herein) has been ordered on 16-5-1975 whereas Pak Workers' Union, Mahmood Textile Mills, Muaaffargarh has been declared as C. B. A. For a period of to years with effect from 12th May 1975. Therefore, your application for participation in secret ballot cannot be entertained at this stage.---
7. This writ petition has been filed to challenge the order of the Registrar, whereby he certified the Pak Workers' Union, respondent No. 2, to be the Collective Bargaining Agent with effect from 12th May 1975, for a period of to years.
8. The impugned order is contained in the letter filed as Annexure "E" to the writ petition, being a letter sent by the Registrar, Trade Unions, to respondent No. 2 on 13-5-1975, which is in the following terms: ---Consequent upon withdrawal from the contest of one rival registered, Trade Union, viz., Inqalabi Mazdoor Union, Mahmood Textile Mills, Muzaffargarh, your Union in the capacity of applicant-Union became liable to be certified as C. B. A. In respect of establishment of Mahmood Textile Mills, Muzaffargarh per provision of subsection (9-e)--of section 22 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
Accordingly, your Union is hereby certified to be the Collective Bargaining Agent for a period of to years w.e.f. 12th May 1975. Necessary certificate is enclosed: Please acknowledge receipt.---
9. The main argument urged on behalf of the petitioner-Union is that when there is a plurality of registered Trade Unions in an establishment, the Registrar of Trade Unions is not authorized t4 certify any of the Trade 'Unions as the Collective Bargaining Agent for a period of to years, without holding a secret ballot. In the instant case respondent No. 1 purported to at under the provisions of subsection (9-a) of section 22 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, but even under the said provision of law respondent. No. 2 could not be certified for a period of to years for the reason that it is, only in those cases where there is a contest between the rival Trade Unions that the period of certification can be for to years. On this basis, it is urged that the impugned order of the Registrar, Trade Unions, is without lawful authority. Reliance has been placed on a judgment of the Sind & Baluchistan High Court, entitled S. I. T. E. Employees' Union v. Registrar, Trade Unions (1973 PLC 88), wherein it was held that even if a Trade Union fails to respond to a notice received from the Registrar under subsection (3) calling upon it to indicate whether it desires to be contestant in the secret ballot, it is, necessary that the poll be held. Accordingly where a Collective Bargaining Agent was determined without holding a secret ballot despite their being plurality of registered Trade Unions, the certificate granted in favour of the sole contestant Workers' Union, declaring it as Collective Bargaining Agent, was held to be without lawful authority and ineffective. The ratio of this judgment was that a poll is necessary even where there is one Union coming, forward to contest, because unless the number of votes received by it is not less than 1/3rd of the total number of the workmen employed in the establishment, such a Union cannot be declared to be a Collective Bargaining Agent.
10. The view taken in this judgment was not, it appears, acceptable to the Legislature. Accordingly, subsection (9-a) was added to section 22 by Ordinance XIX of 1974 as follows: - "If no Trade Union indicates under clause (a) of subsection (3) that it desires to be a contestant in the secret ballot, the Registrar shall certify the Trade Union which has made the application under subsection (2)--to be the Collective Bargaining Agent."
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner-Union submits that though respondent No. 2 could, in view of the change in the law, be declared as the Collective Bargaining Agent of respondent No. 4, but it could not be declared as such for a period of to years. Hence, after the petitioner-Union had been registered as a Trade Union, it could at any the move the Registrar under subsection (2) of section 22 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance to, hold a secret ballot, to determine which of the Trade Unions would b the Collective Bargaining Agent in the establishment or group.
12. The learned counsel for the respondents have relied upon the provision of subsection (i0) of section 22 of the Industrial Relation Ordinance, which is as follows: ---Where a registered Trade Union has been certified under clause (e) a subsection (9) to be the Collective Bargaining Agent for an establishment or group of establishments, no application for the determination of the Collective Bargaining Agent for such establishment or group shall be entertained within a period of to years from the date of such certification except where the registration of such a registered Trade Union is cancelled before the expiration of that period.---
13. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the above provision of law is not helpful to the respondents, because it relates to certification under clause (e) of subsection (91 of section 22 and not under sin: section (9-a) of section 22 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, as is the case here.
14. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and careful examining the provisions of section 22 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, have reached the conclusion that subsection (9-a) of section 22 of the industrial Relations Ordinance is, in pith and substance, in the nature of fourth proviso to clause (e) of subsection (9) and can be read as such, eve though numbered as subsection (9-a) of section 22 of the I. R. O. The certification of respondent No. 2 can, therefore, be treated to be a certification within the meaning of clause (e) of subsection (9' of section 22 of the I.
R. O.
15. So far as the problem in hand is concerned, I note that there is n provision except subsection
(10) of section 22 which prescribes the period for which a certification once granted to a Union as Collective Bargaining Agent is to enure and it is only in subsection (10) of section 22 that a period is specified. Even otherwise, it would not be proper to disturb the representative character of a Union by allowing frequent referendums and the period c to years appears to be the minimum period for which a Trade Union can b certified as the Collective Bargaining Agent. In the absence of any other provision prescribing the period for which the certification is to enure, the Registrar, Trade Unions can legitimately fall back on a period prescribed I the Legislature in section 22, which appears to be the minimum period for which the certification once granted to a Collective Bargaining Agent should enure.
16. An argument was also advanced regarding the mala fides of respondent No. 1, but there is nothing on the record to establish that be acted mala fide.
17. The overall result is that there is no force in this writ petition which is hereby dismissed. But in view of the complexity of the legal question involved, there will be no order as to costs.