PESHAWAR FOOD WARE HOUSE AND CARRIER WORKERS' UNION, PESHAWAR Versus REGISTRAR, TRADE UNIONS, LABOUR DIRECTORATE, GOVERNMENT OF N.W.F.P. PESHAWAR

This appeal has been moved under section 11 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance to call in question the legality of the decision of the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court dated 15‑10‑1992 whereby while accepting the complaint under section 10 filed by the Registrar, Trade Unions, respondent No. 1, the certificate of registration of the appellant, dated 8‑3‑1981 was cancelled.

2. The relevant background resulting into the instant litigation between the parties is that the Registrar, Trade Unions, Peshawar made a complaint in terms of section 10 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance for de‑registration of the appellant trade union on the allegations that the officials of this union are Government servants being the employees of the Food Department of the. Provincial Government and as such they are prohibited from forming trade union under Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1987. The Director, Food Department, respondent No. 2, conceded the factual and legal position as given in the complaint but the appellants opposed the complaint dubbing it as baseless, motivated by ulterior motives and also in violation of the relevant law.

3. At the trial of the complaint P.W.1 Mr. Bashirullah Khan, Registrar, Trade Unions appeared to support his complaint. It was stated by him that the appellant union was registered vide office certificate No. 20/89, dated 8‑3‑1989 which was objected to by the Director of Food Department pointing out that the members of the union are in Government service and are, therefore, debarred under the Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1987 to form a trade union. The union was, therefore, served by him to explain this position but it failed to appear before him. He inspected the service record of the members of the trade union and found them to be Government servants. He satisfied himself that the union in question does not qualify to be registered, therefore, he submitted the complaint under section 10 of the I.R.O. On the side of Director, Food Department arrayed as respondent No. 2 in the complaint R.W.1. Saeedur Rehman appeared to support the contents of the complaint. The following portion of his statement is reproduced as it has great impart on the decision of the case:

"The office‑bearers of the union Mr. Bughdad Shah, President and Sher Ghani, General Secretary alongwith members are Government servants. They are governed by Civil Servants Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1973 and Conduct Rules, 1987. Their Service Books have been maintained by our office properly according to the procedure laid down by the Government. I produced the Service Books of 75 persons who are Class IV employees and the members of the disputed union. Their names are given in list signed by me which is Exh. R.W.1/6. The Service Books are produced in original and their copies are Exh. R.W.1/7 to Exh. R.W.1/77."

The other witness examined by the Department is R.W. 2 Fazli Wadood, Head Clerk who produced the relevant record showing the members of the trade union to be Government servants and in the end also stated: "According to the Pay Roles produced the Chowkidars who have formed respondent No., 1 Union gets their pay under Government Budget from the A: G. Office and they are Government servants". The appellant examined its President S. Bughdad Shah. The substance of his statement is that the complaint is mala fide and discriminatory in the sense that it has been moved only against their union whereas the other unions registered under similar circumstances have been left out. Although in his examination‑in‑chief he did not clarify his position as to whether he is a Government servant or a workman, however, he admitted in his cross‑examination that when the Government announced increase in the salary etc. the members of the union were also paid enhanced salary.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the Chowkidars of the Department have not been excluded to form trade union. He referred to the definition of the trade union and submitted that the case of the appellant would be covered by the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. He also complained that similar unions of other departments like P.W.D. have not been proceeded against but instead the appellants have been picked up out of the lot and have, therefore, been discriminated. These submissions were opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

5. I considered these submissions in the light of the evidence on record and the relevant law.

6. It has been fully proved from the evidence examined by the Director of the Food Department, respondent No. 2, referred to above that the members of the disputed trade union are Government servants. The status of the members of the trade union has neither been controverted in the written statement nor denied in the statement in Court. It is thus clear that the members of the union would be governed by the provisions of N: W.F.P. Civil Servants Act, 1973. This could also not be refuted that the Food Department in which they are employed has got nothing to do with any trade nor it is engaged in any manufacturing process. The very definition of the trade union pre supposes union of the workmen who are engaged in trade and other manufacturing process. It is, therefore, inexplicable as to how the appellants could form a trade union when their sphere of activities and the department in which they are serving has nothing to do with any trade, business or industry. For the foregoing reasons I find that the conclusion reached by the learned Labour Court is well‑founded and' needs no interference. This appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.

H.B.T./163/Lb.N

Appeal dismissed.