WORKERS FRONT, HABIB BANK LTD., CITY ZONE MULTAN Versus REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS MULTAN

ORDER

Habib Bank Limited, Multan was bifurcated into two Zones in 1984 as City Zone and Cantt: Zone. It had two registered Unions i.e. Employees' Union and Staff Union representing members of both the Zones. For the purposes of having a Collective Bargaining Agent referendum was held. Both the unions participated. The Employees' Union was certified as Collective Bargaining Agent under Subsection (2) of section 22 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 vide order of the Registrar dated 2‑9‑1986 (Annexure A). Employees working in the City Zone subsequently formed a Union known as Workers' Front and applied for registration. It was so registered vide order dated 18‑5‑1987. Two days later on 20‑5‑1987 it applied for being declared as a Collective Bargaining Agent of the City Zone saying that it was the only Union in the City Zone and so entitled to a declaration in accordance with the provisions of section 22 (1) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1968. The application has been rejected by the learned Registrar of Trade Unions vide his order dated 20‑6‑1987, which is to the following effect. "Two registered trade unions are already functioning in the establishment of Habib Bank Limited, Multan. Habib Bank Limited, Employees' Union, Multan, has been certified as C.B.A. under section 22 (9)(e) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1989 on 2‑9‑1986. Your application under section 22(1) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 is not entertainable as under section 22(10) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 where a registered trade union has been certified under clause (e) of subsection (9) to be Collective Bargaining Agent for an establishment or a group of establishments, no application for the determination of the Collective Bargaining Agent for such establishment or group shall be entertained within a period of two years from the date of such certification. Your application for certification as Collective Bargaining Agent has, therefore, been consigned to record." Hence, this petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the City Zone is one establishment and the petitioner being the only registered union in the City Zone, it was entitled to be declared as Collective Bargaining Agent in accordance with provision of section 22(1) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1989. It is submitted that since the petitioner had more than 1/5th of the members of City Zone which comprised of 215 members, it was, therefore, registered as a Trade Union. If the two Zones were to be put together i.e. City Zone and Cantt. Zone, the membership would be 215+183=398 and the petitioner union would not be registered‑‑its membership being less than 1/5th of the total 398. The fact that It was registered as a Trade Union would mean that it has to be declared as Collective Bargaining Agent for the City Zone being the only Union.

3. The relevant provisions may be quoted before proceeding further, Section 22. Collective Bargaining Agent:

"(1) Where there is only one registered trade union in an establishment or a group of establishments, that trade union shall if it has as its members not lose than one‑third of the total number of workmen employed in such establishment or group of establishments, (upon an application made in this behalf be certified by the Registrar in the prescribed manner) to be the collective bargaining agent for such establishment or group.

(2) Where there are more registered trade unions than one in an establishment or a group of establishments, the Registrar shall upon an application made in this behalf by any such trade union which has as its members not lose than one‑third of the total number of workmen employed in such establishment or group of establishments or by the employer (for the Government), hold(within fifteen days from the making of the application) as secret ballot to determine as to which one of such trade unions shall be the Collective Bargaining Agent for the establishment or group.

(9) For the purpose of holding secret ballot to determine the collective bargaining agent, the Registrar shall ..............

(e) after the conclusion of the count, (certify) the trade union which has received the highest number or votes to be the collective bargaining agent:

(10) Where a registered trade union has been (certified) under clause (e) of subsection (9) to be the collective bargaining agent for an establishment or group of establishments, no application for the determination of the collective bargaining agent for such establishment or group shall be entertained within a period of two years from the date of such (certification) (except where the registration of such a registered trade union is cancelled before the expiration of that period)."

4. From the statement of facts made above in pare 1, it may be recapitulated that the Habib Bank Limited, Multan had two Zones i.e. City and Cantt. from 1984 onward. There were two unions, namely, Employees' Union and Staff Union encompassing the employees of both the Zones. For declaring a Collective Bargaining Agent, referendum was held. Employees of the Bank of both the Zones participated in the referendum. One of the unions i.e. the Employees' Union was certified as a Collective Bargaining Agent in 1986. It is patent that the members of the petitioner's union were the members either of the Employees Union or Staff Union and had participated in the referendum held in 1986‑‑there being no union of their own until much later when it was registered on 18‑5‑1987. They have to abide by the result of the referendum. They cannot, on the one hand, participate in the referendum and later on turn round and say that they do not abide by the result of the referendum. This is by no means a conduct entitling a person to get equitable relief in exercise of the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. The fact that the petitioner's union has subsequently been registered as a Trade Union of the City Zone would not have the effect of annulling or reducing the scope of operation of the referendum. The learned counsel for petitioner is right when he says that if in an establishment there is only one union that is to be certified as a Collective Bargaining Agent under subsection (1) of section 22 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 but subsection (2) of the same section provides that "Where there are more registered trade unions than one in an establishment or a group of establishments, the Registrar shall upon an application made in this behalf by any such trade union which has as its members not less than one‑third of the total number of workmen employed in such establishment or group of establishments or by the employer (for the Government), hold (within fifteen days from the making of the application) as secret ballot to determine as to which one of such trade unions shall be the Collective Bargaining Agent for the establishment or group." In 1984, there were two Zones in Multan of the Habib Bank Limited, Multan. There were two unions comprising the employees of both the Zones. Referendum was held and one of the union was declared as a Collective Bargaining Agent. Notwithstanding the two Zones, the establishment was taken as one and everybody coalesced. Declaration of Collective Bargaining Agent was issued under subsection (2) of Section 22 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Even if the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner be taken as correct that City Zone was an independent or another establishment, then too, it would be seen that subsection (2) of section 22 of the aforesaid Ordinance provides that "Where there are more registered trade unions than one in an establishment or a group of establishments (underlying is to make out the point), the Registrar shall‑‑‑‑hold the referendum. "The declaration issued would thus cover the employees of both the establishments i.e. Cantt. Zone and the City Zone. The contention that since the petitioner union, 'Workers' Front has been registered as a Trade Union for the City Zone taking the latter as an independent establishment otherwise it could not be registered because its membership was less than 1/5th of the total members of the employees of both the Zones is self defeating. If it could not be registered, it cannot ask for a declaration of being a Bargaining Agent. But it is nobody's case that the registration was invalid. The argument was only specious and suicidal. If the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner were to be correct than a defeated union of a group of establishments in a referendum can get the dissidents from a union in a group and claiming as a sole union ask for being declared as a Collective Bargaining Agent of the group. It will then subvert the result of the referendum held in accordance with law at the relevant time. Such an interpretation which destroys efficacy of law and its consequences cannot be countenanced in a Court of law.

5. For the foregoing reasons, the members of the petitioner's union and it itself which has come into being after the event, have to abide by the result of the referendum held in 1986 for the requisite period of two years as provided in subsection (10) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. One year has gone by and the petitioner can wait another to let the law have its course. Therefore, there being no merit or force in this petition, it is dismissed in limine.

M. Y. H. / W‑11/ L

Petition dismissed.