HABIB BANK LIMITED EMPLOYEES' UNION, MULTAN ZONE, MULTAN Versus REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS, MULTAN REGION, MULTAN , Syed Aqa Asif Jaffary & Ch. Altaf Hussain

MUNIR A. SHAIKH, J.--- This Intra-Court Appeal under section 3, of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 is directed against judgment dated 23-5-1989 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1609 of 1988 whereby the same was accepted and the Registrar, Trade Union, Multan, was directed to hold referendum to ascertain secretly the Collective Bargaining Agent in the Habib Bank City Zone, Multan.

2. Shortly stated the facts of the case are that the Habib Bank Limited had a number of Branches in Multan City known as Multan Zone In the year 1984 it was bifurcated into two Zones i.e. City Zone and Cantonment Zone for administrative purposes. At that time there were two registered trade unions namely the appellant and the Staff Union both of which had membership in both the Zones. In order to decide as to which of the said trade unions should act as Collective Bargaining Agent, an election was held in the year 1986 as a result of which the appellant was certified to be the Collective Bargaining Agent by the Registrar on 2-9-1986. Under the law this certificate was effective for two years. After splitting up of Multan Zone into two Zones the workers of Habib Bank Branches falling in the City Zone formed a trade union in the name and style of Workers Front, Habib Bank Ltd., City Zone i.e. respondent No. 2. The Registrar under the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, registered it as trade union for the City Zone. On 18-5-1987 respondent No. 2 applied to the Registrar of Trade Union, Multan that it should be certified as Collective Bargaining Agent in the City Zone which application was declined through order dated 20-6-1987 for the reason that the period of two years had not yet expired. This order was challenged by respondent No. 2 by filing Writ Petition No. 824/87 before this Court which was disposed of through judgment dated 29-6-1987 with the observation that after the expiry of two years the law will have its own course. ICA No. 17/87 was filed against the said judgment and the Division Bench of this Court disposed it of with the observation that the Registrar will act strictly in accordance with law. After the expiry of two years respondent No. 2 submitted an application before the Registrar Trade Union, Multan on 30-10-1988 praying for holding secret ballot in the City Zone in order to determine as to which of the two Trade Unions was entitled to act as Collective Bargaining Agent for City Zone. The Registrar failed to hold such a referendum within fifteen days of the date of making of the application as provided by law, therefore, respondent No. 2 filed Writ Petition No. 1609 of 1988 in this Court.

3. The appellant opposed this writ petition on the ground that different branches of the Bank in City Zone did not constitute an establishment as defined in section 2(ix) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, therefore, respondent No. 2 could not compete with the appellant which had its membership from branches in both the Zones. The learned Single Judge did not accept this argument and held that the branches of the Bank falling in City Zone did constitute an establishment, therefore, employees of the said branches could have a trade union which could compete with the appellant in the matter of determination and certification of Collective Bargaining Agent in the City Zone. The writ petition was accepted through judgment dated 23-5-1989 which has been assailed in this appeal.

4. The main burden of argument presented by the learned counsel for the appellant in support of this appeal was that the banking business being an industry, therefore, Habib Bank Limited as a whole is one industry having different branches at different places and all the branches constitute one establishment; as such, under the law respondent No. 2 on the strength of its membership in City Zone, Multan alone could not as a matter of right claim its certification as Collective Bargaining Agent for City Zone which does not constitute an establishment and could not compete with the appellant which had its membership in both the Zones and had already been certified to be the Collective Bargaining Agent. He further argued that though a period of two years had expired regarding certification of the appellant as Collective Bargaining Agent, but it would remain effective till such time a trade union having membership in both the Zones is registered and challenged the right of the appellant to act as Collective Bargaining Agent, the appellant had a right to act as Collective Bargaining Agent. His precise argument was that all the ? branches falling in both the Zones of Multan is one establishment.

5. The argument certainly appears to be ingenious but not tenable on close scrutiny of relevant provisions of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Under section 3 of the Ordinance workers have been granted right to establish registration of trade union provides that a trade or seeking registration, as such, has to disclose the name of establishment or group of establishment of the industry to which it relates. Section 22 which provides for certification of a trade union as Collective Bargaining Agent prescribes the procedure for determining and certification of a trade union to be the Bargaining Agent if there are more than one trade unions in an establishment contesting with each other for that purpose. Clause (v) of section 2 of the Ordinance defines the collective bargaining agent according to which a trade union in an establishment, which has been certified under section 22, is the bargaining agent for that establishment. Examination of all these provisions of law shows that it is "establishment" which is the determining factor and workers/workmen of an establishment can establish a trade union which can be certified as Collective Bargaining Agent for the said establishment. The expression "establishment" has been defined in the Ordinance as follows:--

"(ix) "Establishment" means any office, firm, industrial unit, undertaking, shop or premises in which workmen are employed for the purpose of carrying on any industry and except in section 22-EE includes a Collective Bargaining Unit, if any, constituted under that section in any establishment or group of establishments."

It is distinctly clear from a bare reading of this definition that any office, firm, industrial unit, undertaking, shop or premises in which workmen are employed for carrying on any industry itself is an establishment, the only condition being that it should relate to an industry. It is clear that under this definition there can be more than one establishment in any industry. The arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant if considered in the light of the relevant provisions of Industrial Relations Ordinance, mentioned above, are not only self-destructive but if accepted would render the said provisions of law redundant. What the learned counsel wants us to hold is that there can be only one establishment in any industry, which argument cannot be accepted without doing violence to the express provisions of the Ordinance which are to the contrary. According to definition of expression "establishment" as reproduced above even an industrial unit in an industry is an establishment itself. Learned counsel for the appellant could not refer to any provision of I.R.O. prohibiting more than one establishment in relation to an industry. When we say that the argument is self-destructive we say so because if the test as canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant itself is applied it could not claim to be a trade union of an establishment because according to the learned counsel all the branches of the Habib Bank Limited in the entire country would constitute one establishment and not only the branches located in Multan. We have not been able to persuade ourselves to agree with the reasoning given by the Chairman of the N.I.R.C. in judgment reported as Pakistan Spensers Employees' Union (1977 PLC 20) relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant holding that "establishment" means the whole organization which carries on any business or industry and not its branches at various places. The rule laid down in judgment reported as Grindlays Bank (Lloyds Branch) Employees' Union v. Registrar Trade Unions, Lahore Region, Lahore and another (1980 LLC 72) and. Muhammad Aqil v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and another PLD 1978 Kar. 649 that different units of the industry even if owned by the same employer would constitute an establishment, if we may say so, lays down the correct law.

6. As has been discussed above workers/workmen employed in an establishment under the law have been granted a right to form a trade union and get the same registered. Respondent No. 2 was registered as a trade union of the workers employed in the branches of Habib Bank Limited in City Zone and if the petitioner's case was that these' branches did not constitute an establishment it should have objected to the registration of respondent No. 2 as trade union for such branches. Learned counsel for the petitioner when questioned frankly conceded that no such objection was raised and the order passed by the Registrar Trade Unions regarding registration of respondent No. 2 as trade union for City Zone has not otherwise been challenged uptil now. If respondent No. 2 could be registered as trade union in relation to branches within City Zone it could very well seek certification as C.BA. for the City Zone.

8. For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed, but the parties are left to bear their own costs.

A.A./H-14/L ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.