' ZAHID KURBAN ALVI, J.----This Constitutional Petition has been filed with the following prayer:--
(i) Hold and declare that two certificates, one under section 8 and other under section 22(1) of IRO, 1969, being "certificate for registration" and "certificate of CBA, dated 11-12-1995 and 27-12-1995" have been issued illegally, and as such are void, incompetent, without lawful authority/jurisdiction, hence of no legal consequences;
(ii) suspend/stay the operation of two certificates one of registration of respondent No,2 Union and other of CBA ship, issued by respondent No,1;
(iii) any other relief which this Honorable Court may deem fit and proper;
(iv) cost of the petition."
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner has been created by an enactment under Ordinance IV of 1980. Under section 25 of the Ordinance, the Federal Government had been authorized to exempt by Notification in the Official Gazette, under the jurisdiction and authority of the Export Processing Zones Authority from the operation of all or any of the provisions of any law for the time being in force, which relates to any matter within the legislative competence of parliament. According to the petitioner, by virtue of section 25 of the Export Processing Zones Authority Ordinance, 1980, the Federal Government issued a Notification S.R.O. 1004(1)/82, dated 10- 10-1982, wherein the Federal Government was pleased to exempt the Export Processing Zones from the provisions of the following laws:--
(1) The workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (VII of 1923);
(2) the Factories Act, 1934 (XXV of 1934);
(3) the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (IV of 1936);
(4) the Minimum Wages Ordinance, 1961 (XXXIX of 1961);
(5) the Provincial Employee's Social Security Ordinance, 1965 (W.P. Ordinance No, X of 1965);
(6) the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 (W.P. Ordinance No, VI of 1968);
(7) the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (XXIII of 1969);
(8) the West Pakistan Shops Establishment Ordinance, 1969 (W.P. Ordinance No,VIII of 1969); and
(8) the Employee's Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976 (XIV of 1976).
3. In spirt of the above the workers working with the Authority attempted to form a Uinion and had succeeded in getting the same registered in spite of the fact that such activities were challenged before competent Court of Law and it was categorically held that IRO, 1969 and other Labour Laws were not applicable to the Zones established by the Authoity. In fact it was also held that the employees/workers could not initiate proceedings under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, (hereinafter would be referred to as the "IRO, 1969"). According to the petitioner in spite of the decisions of the Courts some people did manage to get Union formed and succeeded in getting it registered. It is further contended that such registration took place without the knowledge and without any notice to the petitioner and without fulfilling the requirements of the IRO, 1969, which relates to how and when a Union can be formed and when a Collective Bargaining Agent (CBA) can be established. Ultimately, CBA was formed and a Demand of Charter was made.
The petitioner tried to find out how such a Union was registered but no information was forthcoming. Several letters addressed but no reply was given. On the other hand, the petitioner received a Charter of Demand, dated 4-1-1996. The Registrar (respondent No, 1), was also requested to file a complaint under section 10(1) of IRO, 1969, but even that was not done. Being aggrieved, this petition was filed.
4. Several grounds have been taken but the main ground is that the formation of a Union was illegal and the registration of a C.B.A. Was also illegal as the registration in granting a C.B.A.
Certificate was done by the Registrar without taking cognizance of the Ordinance, 1980 and S.R.O.
1004(1)/82, dated 10-10-1982. They have further challenged this registration on the ground that the petitioner had not been associated and the applications were granted and registration done without hearing the petitioner. They have ultimately sought a declaration by this Court that the certificates under section 8 and 22(1) of the I.R.O., 1969, have been issued illegally and as such they should be declared as void and incompetent.
5. The counter affidavit on behalf of respondent No,2 has been filed, wherein the respondent No,2 has denied that any illegality has been committed. They have furthermore denied that the previous Unions were declared illegal. They have further contended that it is a fundamental right of the workers to organize a Trade Union and, therefore, they have not done any' act which could be construed as illegal. They have also stated that no violation of the provisions of I.R.O., 1969, has been done. According to them the Union has been correctly registered and the Charter of Demand was rightly made by the C.B.A., who was also legally registered.
6. A rejoinder has also been filed, wherein details were provided by the Union that were declared illegal. Several points have been clarified but it has been emphasized particularly that the previous Union known as the Export Processing Zone Authority Employees Union had their registration cancelled and the Constitutional petition filed by the Union was ultimately withdrawn as not pressed. An industrial dispute that was raised by the Union before the Labour Court No, IV was also dismissed. In the affidavit-in-rejoinder several other facts have also been highlighted. In support of the contentions made in the affidavit-in-rejoinder documents have also been placed on record.
7. We have heard the counsel at length and have gone through all the acts. Our attention has been drawn to the case of Export Processing Zone, Authority, Karachi v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal (1990 CLC 666). In this case a dispute had arisen and a grievance was made under section 25-A of the IRO, 1969, by an individual. The grievance was filed before the Sindh Labour Court. The objection was taken by the Export Processing Zone Authority that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain such a grievance as by virtue of section 25 of the Export Processing Zones Authority Ordinance, 1980, exemption from the applicability of IRO and other laws relating to labour had been' given. The relevant laws which were not made applicable to the Export Processing Zones Authority have been enumerated in the said judgment. The order of the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal was, therefore, declared, to be without lawful authority.
8. The Registrar and the Joint Director, Trade Unions, were present at the time when we heard this matter. They pointed out that the certificate was issued at the time when Export Processing Zones Authority was located outside the Zone on Shahrah-e-Faisal, Karachi. According to them, now that the Authority was located in the Zone itself, therefore, such a certificate was, for all practical purposes, useless by virtue of the decision given by the Division Bench of the Sindh High Court earlier.
9. We would, therefore, hold on the basis of the decision so given and the facts that have been highlighted, wherein it is absolutely clear that the laws relating to the Workers Union are not applicable in the Zones by virtue of what has been stated above. The Petition No, D-7 of 1998, which has been filed by the Export Processing Zone Authority, Karachi, seeking a declaration that the Certificate for Registration, dated 11-12-1995 and Certificate of C.B.A. Dated 27-12-1995, should be declared as having been issued illegal is allowed, as prayed.
10. As regards the Constitutional Petition No, 8 of 1998, is concerned, this has been filed by the Pakistan National Federation of Trade Union and the Export Processing Zones Authority Staff Union.
This petition is dismissed with no order as to costs, by virtue of the decision given by a Division Bench of this Court earlier and which is binding upon as laid down in the case of Multiline Associates v. Ardeshir Cowasjee and others (1995 SCM R 362).
11. C.M.A No, 44 of 1998 in Constitutional Petition No, D-7 of 1998 and C.M.A. No,39 of 1998 in Constitutional Petition No, D-8 of 1998, have become infructuous, which have been disposed of accordingly.