' ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA (CHAIRMAN).---This appeal under section 22-D of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 filed by Aero-Asia Staff and Workers' Union through its General Secretary and President, is directed against order, dated 30-10-1999 passed by Mr. Ijaz Ahmad K. Sheikh, the then Member, N.I.R.C., Karachi Bench whereby the appellant's petition under section 22-A(8)(g) of I.R.O., 1969 together with the stay application was dismissed.
2. Facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant union filed a petition under section 22-A(8)(g) of I.R.O., 1969 on the allegations that the workmen of Aero- Asia/respondent Company formed the appellant union on 25th July, 1999 and the application for its registration was sent to the Registrar of Industry-wise Trade Unions on 1-8-1999 by registered post. When the respondents came to know about the formation of the union, the President of the union was called by them and threatened that he and other office-bearers as also members of the union would be removed from employment. It was further alleged that on 1-8-1999, on the order of the respondents, cards of the persons performing the duty in the night shift were snatched and the same treatment was meted out to the workers of the morning shift. These workers were told to resign from employment of the respondent-company and were promised that they would be paid Rs,6,000 extra and would also be given jobs through contractor if they resigned from the service.
These acts of the respondents, it was alleged by the appellant union, amounted to acts of unfair labour practice within the meaning of section 15 of I.R.O., 1969. It was accordingly prayed by the appellant that the respondents be restrained from removing the office-bearers and members of the union and other employees from employment of the respondent company by way of dismissal, discharge or termination and from closing down the establishment. On 3-8-1999, the petition was placed before the Single Member who issued an ad interim injunction restraining the respondents from removing any employee including the office-bearers of the union by way of unfair labour practice. It appears that on 10-8-1999 the appellant union moved a fresh application under Regulation 32(2) of N.I.R.C. (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973, supported by affidavit, praying that the respondents may be directed to refrain from stopping the listed workers/members of the union from performing their duties and not to terminate, discharge, remove or dismiss the workers whose names were mentioned in the list Annexs. P to P-24, therewith. It was further prayed in that application that the termination letters issued to the workers (Annexs. A-5 to A-24) be ordered to be kept in abeyance and the respondents be directed not to change/alter the terms and conditions of the workers contrary to their interest.
3. The respondents filed counter-affidavit to the stay application denying the allegations of unfair labour practice alleged by the appellant union. They also challenged the locus standi of the appellant union to file the application contending that the union being unregistered body could not sue or be sued, and therefore, the application filed by it was not maintainable. The learned Member after hearing the arguments of both the sides upheld the objection raised by the respondents that an unregistered trade union cannot espouse the cause of the workers nor it can approach this Commission under section 22-A(8)(g) of I.R.O., '1969. The petition filed by the union was accordingly dismissed together with the stay application recalling the stay order earlier granted. This was vide order, dated 30-10-1999 impugned in the present appeal.
4. We have heard the Representative of the appellant union as also the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. It is not denied that the appellant union was not a registered trade union at the time when it filed the petition under section 22-A(8)(g) of I.R.O., 1969 before the learned Single Bench of this Commission. That being so, it was only a combination of workmen as defined in section 2(xxvi) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and as such it could not bring the petition in its own name as it did not have the status of a body corporate so as to be entitled to sue or be sued. Such a status is acquired by the Trade Union only when it gets registered with the Registrar of Trade Unions. Reference in this behalf may pertinently be made to section 14 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 which provides "Every registered trade union shall be a body corporate by the name under which it is registered, shall have perpetual succession and a common seal and the power to contract and to acquire, hold and dispose of property, both movable and immovable and shall by the said name sue or be sued". The principle enshrined in section 14 of I.R.O., 1969 is fairly well-settled. It was laid down in a case reported in AIR 1940 Nagpur 288 that unregistered trade union cannot sue or be sued in its name and all its members, must be parties to the proceedings.
Similar view has been taken in the case reported in 1989 M LD 3436, wherein it is held that a trade union cannot sue unless it is registered and a petition failed by an unregistered trade union is not maintainable. Reference may also usefully be made to section 22-A(8)(g) whereunder the appellant union had filed the petition before the Single Bench. This provision says that the Commission shall deal with the cases of unfair labour practice in the manner laid down under section 25-A or section 34 of I.R .0., or in such other way as may be prescribed. Section 25-A provides for redress of individual grievances. Proceedings under section 25-A of I.R.O., 1969 may be instituted by the aggrieved worker himself or in certain eventualities by the Shop-Steward or Collective Bargaining Agent. The application under section 34, of I.R.O., 1969 can, however, be filed only by a Collective Bargaining Agent or an employer. It is not the case of the appellant union nor could it possibly claim that it was a Collective Bargaining Agent for the respondent-establishment.
Reference to the provisions of section 22 of I.R.O., 1969 would show that only a registered trade union can be declared/certified as Collective Bargaining Agent thereunder. Thus, viewed from whatever angle, the petitioner-union not being a registered trade union was not competent to institute the proceedings before the Single Bench of this Commission. The petition filed by it before the learned Single Bench of this Commission, was, therefore, rightly dismissed as not maintainable.
5. For what has been said above, the impugned order of the learned Single Member is not open to any exception and this appeal is accordingly dismissed.