HOLIDAY INN PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC WORKERS' UNION Versus REGISTRAR, TRADE UNIONS ETC.

AJMAL MIAN, J.‑‑ This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16‑2‑3987 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.P.No.15 of 1987.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above appeal are that the Registrar of Trade Unions, i.e. respondent No.l, in terms of section 22 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance asked for the lists of voters from the employer and the three registered trade' unions. It seems that the aforesaid lists were submitted and thereafter a final voters list was prepared by respondent No. 1. The appellant filed aforesaid Constitutional petition impugning the lists on the ground that respondent No.l failed to discharge his statutory duty by not holding a proper enquiry in terms of section 22 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. But the learned Single Judge by the aforesaid judgment dismissed the petition on the ground that the present appellants who were the petitioners in the petition failed to place any material on record to indicate that the Registrar had failed to hold the requisite enquiry.

3. The appellants have filed the present appeal. Appellant No.l is one of the three registered trade unions whereas the appellants No.2 to 8 are the alleged workers who have been allegedly wrongly excluded from the voters list.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also the representative of respondent No.l, Mr. Barkat Ahmed, Assistant Director Labour Trade Unions.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants have referred to the following three cases:‑

(1) The case of Karachi Dock Labour Board v. Ahmed and two others reported in 1982 P L C 86.

(2) Treasurer of Charitable Endowments for Pakistan v. Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad, and others, reported in F L D 1981 Kar. 357.

(3) Karachi Electric Supply Corporation v. National Industrial Relations Commission and 6 others reported in 1983 P L C 36 7.

6. In support of the contention that it is the statutory duty of the Registrar to hold enquiry and that the consent on the part of the union to exclude any particular worker or workers would not constitute an estoppel. From the comments filed by respondent No.l, it seems that no formal enquiry was held though the respondent No.l had visited the establishment of the hotel to find out whether certain workers were available or not. In our view, it will be just and proper to remand the case to the Registrar with the direction to hear the employer and the three registered trade unions on the basis of the lists already submitted by them and to finalise the preparation of the voters' lists within a period of two weeks from today after holding enquiry. Thereafter, he will hold referendum within a week.

7. The appeal is, therefore, allowed in the above terms with no orders as to costs.

There will be no need of any notice to the parties. The parties shall appear before the Registrar on 1‑4‑1987 at 12 O clock.

M.Y.H./73/K Case remanded.