WALL'S EMPLOYEES UNION (LEVER BROTHERS NOW UNI-LEVER BROTHERS) vs REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS, DISTRICT KASUR and 2 others

ORDER

' SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, J . --- Facts as alleged in the petition are that petitioner is a trade union of workers, in WALL'S Ice Cream Factory, which was formed under Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and registered in the year 1995. It has been claimed that the petitioner-union is the representative of workers without disclosing the fact whether or not the petitioner is duly certified Collective Bargaining Agent under section 20 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002. It is asserted in the petition that another Union, under the name of Muttihida Inqalabi Union was registered on 30-5- 2006 and an application for registration of a trade union under the name and style of Pakistan WALL'S Workers Union was submitted to the Registrar Trade Union. This application was rejected by the Registrar, vide order, dated 16-5-2006. It is further stated another union under the name of WALL's Shaheen Workers Union was formed by the same workers who had submitted an application for its registration which was rejected by the Registrar vide order, dated 6-6-2006.

Same office-bearers formed yet another union under the name and style of WALL's Sada-e-Haq Workers Union, they submitted third application for registration, which application has been accepted by the Registrar and the Union has been registered. Petitioners through filing the instant petition, have voiced their grievance against the registration of respondent No,2 i,e, WALL'S Employees Union has filed this petition, with the prayer that the registration of the Union may be declared as illegal and against provisions of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the same set of office-bearers have been forming one union after another and whenever their request for registration of that union was declined, they have formed yet another union. The union-respondent No,2 has been registered without proper inquiry. Learned counsel has contended that the Registration qua first union was rejected by the Registrar vide order, dated 6-6-2006 primarily on the ground that resolution for approval of constitution was not passed before filing of the application for registration. It appears that in that case the application for registration of the trade union was approved first than the submission before the authority and then the constitution was approved.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent No,2, on the other hand has fully supported the impugned order. He has submitted that the petitioner manoeuvered the fabrication of false documents which proved fatal to the interest of the respondent in getting their union registered. Learned counsel has submitted that there is no legal bar for a second application for the registration of a trade union when first is refused. Learned counsel has referred to section 3(a) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 to contend that on joining another union, the earlier membership automatically stands cancelled. The respondents when formed another union their membership in the previous union stood automatically cancelled. He has then submitted that Registrar Trade Union has to satisfy himself that requirements of the Ordinance have been complied with while doing so he has to verify the facts and exercise due diligence, which in the instant case has been done. Learned counsel has referred to section 7 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 and submitted that the office-bearers can be disqualified on the ground which have been mentioned in section 7 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002. Learned counsel laid much emphasis that an office-bearer cannot be disqualified merely on the ground that he has earlier joined another union.

6. When Sada-e-Haq Union was formed whose registration has been made vide order, dated 1-7- 2006 the Registrar held an inquiry and the inquiry by the Registrar has revealed that the workers have confirmed that they are members of this union. The employer has also given a letter to the office of the Registrar of Trade Union stating that factory staff companies of 89 persons. The requirement of section 6(2)(b) that third trade unions must have 25th of the workers as its members prima facie is not.

7. Mere fact, that certain persons formed a union with certain other workers as its office-bearers and the Registrar rejected the application for registration does not prevent such persons and such office-bearers from forming another trade union. The Supreme Court of Pakistan in Essa Cement Industries Workers Union v. Registrar of Trade Unions, Hyderabad Region, Hyderabad 1998 PLC 500 has clearly laid down that an employer and even a trade union has no locus standi to maintain a grievance petition merely because the objection raised by it has not been attended to by the Registrar or the employer or a trade union has not been associated with the process of registration.

One trade union cannot be aggrieved party by registration of another union because such registration does not violate any of the rights guaranteed to it by the Industrial Relations Ordinance. Moreover, the right of representation as a Collective Bargaining Agent once a trade union has been registered it is its legal obligation to apply for determination that CBA under section 20(2) within two months of its registration as another union provided there does not exist a Collective Bargaining Agent determined under section 20(2) in the establishment etc. It is in the referendum that real strength and real test of the members of the membership is to take place.

8. For the above reasons, this writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.