1. The petitioners union has assailed an order of the Registrar of Trade Union registering respondent No. 2 union as third union in the establishment of the respondent No. 3. Initially a petition was fled against the registration of the union as well as the election of C.B.A. Proceedings. Since stay was not granted elections were held and the petitioners union again was elected as Collective Bargaining Agent. Since that chapter has been over and the only issue left to be decided by this, Court is whether the registration of the respondent No. 2 was valid, legal and subsisting in the eyes of the law.
2. The petitioner's union was declared as Collective Bargaining Agent on 5th August, 1991 as they won the referendum which was held on 28th July, 1991. According to the employers record the petitioners union had membership of 2,093 employees as their members out of 2676 total workers employed by the respondent No. 3 which leaves a margin of 583 workers to join any other union.
3. The- law requires that if there are to or more registered unions, in an establishment, the subsequent union must prove on record of the respondent No. 1 that it has 1 /5 membership of all workers employed in the whole establishment, as their members. This provision of law can only be satisfied provided that the Registrar of Trade Union before registering a third or subsequent union holds an enquiry and conclusively ascertains that the subsequent union has 1/5 membership of the total workers, in another words 20 % of the workers employed in the whole establishment.
4. No enquiry was conducted by the Registrar. It is apparent on record. The Registrar has not even filed any counter-affidavit to rebut the assertions made by the petitioners in the petition which leads to the credence to the factual aspect of the case. On the basis of record it has been established that the respondent No. 2 union was registered in violation of law and without ascertaining the fact that the said union has 20% membership of the total workers in the establishment of the respondent No. 3. This is one such case which attracts the provisions of section 10 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 inasmuch as the provisions of section 7(2)(b) have not been complied with, and the union appears to have been registered in contravention of I.R.O. By the Registrar of Trade Union.
5. I am constrained to point out that abdication of functions conferred on authorities created under the law and taking lenient view in relation to the mandatory provisions of the law by the authorities is deplorable. It is expected that the authorities exercising powers under the law should exercise it for the achievement of the end result. In this case a union is registered in violation of law. Why the law was ignored by the authorities, and under which circumstances, are not known. Indeed it is administrative tyranny. When the people are victims of administrative tyranny, they look to the High Court, and .In such circumstances, Constitutional jurisdiction could be exercised and appropriate relief could be given to curb such tyranny, as well as recommend that those officers breaching public trust or misusing or abusing lawful authority by taken to task. Consequently, therefore, learned M.I.T. Is directed to send a copy of this order to the Secretary, Labour Department, Government of Sind who shall hold the enquiry as to why and under which circumstances legal provisions were ignored by the functionaries concerned and if the Secretary comes to the conclusion that illegality is apparent he shall recommend departmental action against the delinquent officers and report compliance to the Member, Inspection Team and also report about final action which may have been taken against the concerned officers.
6. This petition is allowed. The Registrar of Trade Union respondent No. 1 is directed to file a complaint in discharge of his mandatory duty under section 10 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. It will be for the Labour Court to ascertain as to whether the union was illegally registered or otherwise and then pass consequential orders. Since the respondent No. 2 is not contesting before me, as such there will be no order as to costs.