ANWARUL HASAN KHAN Versus CHIEF SECRETARY , Khalilur Rehman
1. The sole question which has been urged before me in the context of
2. Constitutional Petition No. 1 of 1991 from the side of the petitioner is that it had addressed a communication dated 31‑12‑1990 to the Registrar of Trade Unions, respondent No. 1 herein, intimating to that respondent that the registration of the respondent No. 3 union was in contravention of the Industrial Relations Ordinance and that it was obligatory on respondent No.1 to deal with the matter lawfully, one way or the other. According to the same contention, per letter dated 5‑1‑1991 the respondent No. 1, through a subordinate, required the petitioner company to provide details of the workmen employed by it for the determination of the Collective Bargaining Agent under section 22 of the I.R.O. thus impliedly by‑passing the petitioner's communication dated 31‑12‑1990. On this there is some doubt because this letter, which obviously was a requirement under section 22(4) of the I.R.O., could also serve another purpose namely, that pertaining to the grievance of the petitioner, which, inter alia, related to the alleged fact that the office‑. bearers of the respondent No. 3 union exceeded the limit of 25% for outsiders. On the other hand, Mr. Khalilur Rehman, Secretary of the union, has pointed out that there has been no violation of law on the part of the union in seeking and obtaining registration. Further, without conceding to the competency of the objections, and at any event, the union has, in fact, been accepted by the petitioner itself, in the last of which context there has even been resolution of a dispute, as reflected in the minutes of a meeting, which have been brought on record by him.
3. I do not propose to decide any of these questions. Relevant facts would come up before the Registrar in due course of law. It is not disputed here that the communication dated 31‑12‑1990 from the petitioner to the respondent No. 1 Registrar has not been disposed of by him, one way or the other. Likewise, it is also not disputed that the matter of determination of the Collective Bargaining Agent is also pending before the respondent No. 1, Registrar In the event the union was registered in contravention of the requirements of law, the Registrar is the exclusive authority under section 10 of the I.R.O. to file a complaint before the Labour Court and thereupon the matter rests with the Labour Court to decide, according to the prescribed law and procedure. However, insofar as the fifing of such complaint under section 10 is concerned such can be filed by the Registrar either suo motu or on the basis of the credible information received by him from any relevant source. One such source may be the employer.
4. Accordingly, I dispose of this petition observing that both these matters namely the consideration of letter dated 31‑12‑1990 and the determination of the Collective Bargaining Agent, in the light of all the surrounding facts, shall be determined/decided by the Registrar in accordance with law. Such determination/decision shall be made expeditiously, with regard to which disposal it does not appear desirable to fix any specific period of time. With this are also disposed of all or any of the applications in Constitutional Petition No. 1 of 1991.
5. During the course of arguments Mr. M.L. Shahani pointed out that in so far as Constitutional Petitions Nos. 2, 3 and 4 of 1991 are concerned, the petitioners have instructed him not to press such petitions because the respondent No. 3 union in its reply, duly rendered, maintained that it is concerned with and is relevant only to the petitioner in Constitutional Petition No. 1 of 1991. Accordingly, such petitions are dismissed as not pressed and with such dismissal also stand disposed of all or any of the pending Miscellaneous applications therein.
6. H.B.T./S‑967/K Order accordingly.