This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to challenge the registration certificate as well as C.B.A. Certificate issued in favour of respondent No,2 Union by respondent No,1 in the writ petition.
2. It has been stated that after issuance of the said certificate a charter of demand was served by respondent-Union on the petitioner whereafter an objection was raised before respondent No,1 (as Conciliator) that the Union has been registered in the wrong name and that verification has not been sought by the Registrar regarding the fact that 1/3rd of the total number of workmen employed by the petitioner are the members of the Union. Upon receipt of the said objection respondent No,1 proceeded to direct respondent No,2 to amend its name which was amended and consequently an amended certificate was issued on 20-2-1998. With these averments the said relief is sought by the petitioner.
3. Respondent No,1 in its comments specifically stated in reply to para.4 as well as ground (b) in para.9 of the petition that the verification of the members and office-bearers was made on the scrutiny of the list of workmen supplied by the Management and the list of members supplied by the Union.
4. Respondent No,2 in its turn filed C.M. No, 3155 of 1998 complaining that the petitioner had resorted to gross misrepresentation in the matter of the admission of the writ petition as also issuance of interim order suspending operation of the certificate. Alongwith the application a list of members containing full particulars was filed to assert that none of the members is an outsider and that all the members are employees of the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the case of Messrs Kohinoor Tea (Pvt.) Ltd.
Through Managing Director v. Registrar of Trade Unions, Karachi and 2 others (2000 PLC 1) argues that the certificates could not have been issued without joining the petitioner-Company with the proceedings. Learned counsel for respondent No,2 relying on the case of Essa Cement Industries Workers' Union v. Registrar of Trade. Unions, Hyderabad Region, Hyderabad and 4 others (1998 SCM R 1964) argues that the petitioner does not even have a locus standi to file the petition on the ground being urged by the learned counsel.
6. I have gone through the available pleadings of the parties and some documents placed on record by both the parties. There is no denial of the fact on record that list of employees was procured by the Registrar from the petitioner. I do not find any allegation either in any of the applications filed by the petitioner before respondent No,1 or any communication addressed by them to respondent No,1 so much so that even in the writ petition itself it has not been alleged that any particular member of the respondent-Union is not employee of the petitioner within the meaning of section 7 of I.R.O., 1969. Learned counsel was confronted with the said fact and even he is unable to point out the name or particulars of a single member of the respondent Union who is not an employee of the petitioner.
7. It is true that the case of Messrs Kohinoor Tea (Pvt.) Ltd. (2001 PLC 1) decided by the High Court of Karachi as also a judgment in the case of Ghee Corporation of Pakistan v. The Registrar Trade Union (1991 PLC 207) decided by this Court to lay down that joining of the employer with the proceedings of registration would be necessary but both the said judgments have been given in the background of specific allegation that certain members of the Union are not the employees of the employer within the meaning of law. However, the learned counsel for respondent No,2 is very correct in relying upon the said case of Essa Cement Industries Worker's Union v. Registrar of Trade Unions Hyderabad Region, Hyderabad and 4 others (1998 SCM R 1964) to assert that the petitioner would be having no locus standi to challenge the certificate only on the ground that it had not been joined in the proceedings. This writ petition is pending since the year 1998. It was admitted to hearing on 4-8-1998 when the operation of the certificates was suspended. In a matter of days i,e, 19-8-1998 C.M. 3155 of 1998 filed by respondent No,2 was put up before this Court and notice was issued. Alongwith the said application a list containing particulars of all the members of the Union was filed alleging that not even one of the members is an outsider. Almost three years have gone by and the petitioner is unable to name even a single member of the union who is not its employee. In this state of affairs the law laid down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the said case is fully applicable.
8. I also find that this is a case of misrepresentation before this Court on behalf of the petitioner that the Certificate was issued without verification of membership when the petitioner is unable to point out a single member who is an outsider. This writ petition constitutes gross abuse of the process of law and the process of this Court. It is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs,20,000 which shall be paid by the petitioner and shall be deposited by respondent No,2 in the Union funds.