' State Bank of Pakistan Labour Union (CBA) Karachi has filed the instant appeal challenging the order dated 15-8-1997 recorded by Mr. Bahader Ali, Member, NIRC whereby all the establishments of the State Bank of Pakistan have been declared as one CBU.
2. According to the appellant, respondent No,1 made an application for determination of one CBU in the entire establishment of respondent No,2. The appellant had been appearing in the proceedings but no notice for 12-5-1997 was given to it and therefore, he was proceeded ex parte due to non- appearance on the date and the case was adjourned to 13-6-1997. The case was transferred from the files of the Chairman NIRC to the files of Mr. Bahader Ali, Member, who decided the case without recording any evidence and without observing the legal formalities as contemplated by section 22-EE of the Industrial Relations Ordinance.
1969. The learned Member also proceeded ex parte against the appellant vide order, dated 1-7- 1997 and finally the petition was accepted without affording proper, opportunity to the appellant to produce evidence, documents, affidavit, etc. The petition was accepted finally vide impugned order, dated 15-8-1997. It is further mentioned that other Registered Industry-wise Trade Unions were also not summoned; that objections raised by respondent No,33 and others were not discussed and decided; the legal objections were not properly attended; the appellant was CBA and representing about two thousand employees and he was not provided a reasonable opportunity to place its case before the learned Member; it has wrongly been held that respondent No,2 is one establishment; no inquiry was held before deteriming one CBU; the ingredients of section 22-EE of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 were not discussed; the point of maintainability of the petition was not decided. It was further stated that the respondent No,1 was illegally registered and the petition filed by it was not maintainable as the respondent union lost election and referendum in Karachi and other places; the terms and conditions of workers of State Bank were regulated by the Wage Commission Award and as such the Collective Bargaining process would remain suspended; the Classes III and IV employees Unions have formed a Federation and as such there is a body at the apex representing the workers; several terms and conditions of the employees could only be settled at the local level and not by the CBA; that the appellant union has vested right to present this appeal and finally that vide order dated 15-11-1990, 3 CBUs were determined separately for class IV workers employed in the Central Directorate, the Local Offices and Printing Press of the State Bank of Pakistan at Karachi; Clerical (Class III Workers) and separate CBU for respondent No,5, for a period of five years commencing from 1-2-1991. On appeal Printing Press was determined a separate CBU while all the 3 CBUs were directed to remain unchanged unless altered through order, dated 1-10-1991.
3. Respondent No,1 filed written comments wherein it was stated that the appeal was frivolous; the appellant is a locally registered trade union and the tenure of its CBA stood expired and during the referendum proceedings the appellant union had made a statement before the Local Registrar that in view of the orders of the learned Member determining one CBU the referendum proceedings should not be taken by the Registrar, whereafter the present appeal was filed just to delay the process of holding the referendum at national level. It is further mentioned that appellant was not serious to join proceedings before the learned Member and intentionally did not participate, therefore, he could not be allowed at this stage to urge that it was not given reasonable opportunity to prosecute the case. The learned Member decided the case after allowing the parties to file objections, if any, and after allowing the interested parties to argue the case and therefore, the process of inquiry was fully met. The appellant could move an application before the learned Member for setting aside ex parte order if it was at all interested but it could not be allowed to agitate that in appeal. It is further mentioned that the order passed by the learned Member was in consonance with the provisions of law and within the framework of section 22-EE of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. In fact, the appellant had given a joint reply alongwith other respondents Nos.3, 5, 7, 9, 17, 20, 22 and 34 being respondent No,26 in the application and was thus fully reprsented. Moreover, no applicaiton for setting aside ex parte order passed by the Chairman was made by it. Similarly, no application for setting aside ex parte order passed by the learned Member was made.
4. The Counsel for respondent No,2 Management, however, urged that without recording any evidence as per direction of the Full Bench, the learned Member decided the case. He further stated that the decision was given against the spirit of section 22-EE of the Industrial Relations Ordinance.
1969.
5 We have considered various point raised in memo. Of appeal and written comments filed by respondent No,1 as well as addressed by respondent No,2 orally. It is settled proposition of law that all that section 22-EE requires that the Commission should reach its satisfaction as to the necessity and feasibility determining one or more CBUs after holding such inquiry as it deems fit. The scope of the inquiry under section 22-EE has been fully discussed in detail in a reported judgment in 1976 CLC 585 and it has been held that section 22-EE of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 does not at all impose any procedural requirements for the purpose of recording of evidence, etc. It excludes by implication the application of the principle of natural justice, audi alteram partem. It has been held that inquiry contemplated under section 22-EE of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, is not to be equated with a trial involving framing of issues and recording of evidence (1988 PLC 894). The objections taken in the memo. Of appeal are, therefore, frivolous and of no legal effect.
6. The appeal otherwise too is not competent because the appellant made a statement before the local Registrar during referendum proceedings that on CBU had been determined by the NIRC and therefore, proceedings before the Local Registrar were not maintainable. The appellant cannot be allowed to take different stand in the appeal subsequently.
7. It is further noticed that the petition for determined of one CBU was made by respondent No,1 wherein 35 other unions were impleaded as party. In the present appeal, only respondent No,1 has been impleaded which clearly shows that all other unions have no objection to the determination of one CBU in all the establishments of respondent No,2. It appears that all those unions were not impleaded as respondents by the appellant intentionally. For this reason also, the appeal is not maintainable.
8. In proceedings under section 22-EE of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, although the employer is impleaded as pro forma respondent, but the employer cannot be allowed to object the determination of one or more CBUs because it is a matter purely between the unions who represent the workers.
9. In proceedings for determination of CBU no evidence is required to be recorded, as in other cases. The existing unions likely to be affected were given full opportunity to place their view-point before the Bench. Comments were filed by them including the appellant. Thus a fair opportunity was provided by the learned Member. We feel that all the parameter laid down by law were fully taken into consideration by the learned Member before determining or CBU in all the establishments of respondent No,2. We see no force in the various points raised by the appellant and therefore, uphold the decision of the Single Bench and dismiss the appeal with no order as to costs. The CBU will remain effective for two years and until altered.