HABIB JUTE MILLS LTD.JAUHERABAD Versus REGISTRAR, TRADE UNIONS, SARGODHA REGION
The facts giving rise to the revision captioned above are that before the registration of respondent No.2 union there was existing a union in respect of which a case was pending in the civil Court. Second union was formed on 27‑i1‑1986 and on 5‑12‑1986 a third union was formed. On 20‑‑12‑1986 the third union ceased to exist and on 21‑12‑1986 papers for the registration of respondent No.2 union were submitted to the Registrar and on 24th it was registered.
2.The petitioner brought an application under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 to the learned Punjab Labour Court No.5, Faisalabad, which has been dismissed on the ground that the petitioner." ad no locus standi to ask for the cancellation of A the registration of respondent No.2 union and that only the Registrar was competent to apply to the Labour Court for permission to cancel the registration.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the prayer made in the application under section 34 was not for the cancellation of the registration of the union but for an order that the union could not be formed and registered, inasmuch as all its members were not the employees of the petitioner and that the members who were not employees of the petitioner be stopped from having any dealings with the petitioner. Copy of the application given under section 34, is on the file of the revision. A perusal of the said application shows that in the said application following reliefs were chimed:
"Respondent No.l he directed to hold an inquiry in the objections raised in the petition and cancel the registration of respondent No.2 union and should not take any proceedings to issue certificate of C.B.A. in favour of the said union."
It is clear from the reliefs claimed that the prayer was for the cancellation of the registration of the union and for restraining the Registrar from starting any proceedings and issuing certificate of C.B.A. According to section 10 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, only the Registrar has to move the Labour Court for the cancellation of registration of a union. In case where the Registrar has moved any such application, the Court may ask the Registrar to remain restrained from issuing C.B.A. certificate during the pendency of the case. The learned counsel, therefore, has wrongly argued that there was a right guaranteed by any law, settlement or award on the basis of which application under section 34 was brought. Section 10 authorises only the Registrar to apply for permission to cancel the registration of the union, as mentioned above. The petitioner should have instead of making application to the Labour Court under section 34, moved the Registrar to apply to the Labour Court for permission to cancel the registration of the union and it could not ask the ‑Court directly to ask the Registrar to cancel the union.
4. As mentioned above, the ground for cancellation of the registration of respondent No.2 union is that some members of it were not the employees of the petitioner. The persons mentioned in Exh.P.4 were probationers, whereas the ones mentioned in Exh.P.5 were employed after the registration of the union. Exh.P.6 is the list of two apprentices. So, the ground for cancellation of the registration is that all the members of respondent No.2 union were not employees of the petitioner. This is true that clause (a) of subsection (2) of section,7 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 says that a trade union of workmen is entitled to registration if all its members are workmen actually engaged or employed in the industry in which trade union is connected, but merely because some 1 persons cannot be said to be regularly employed on the date on which the union is formed or is sought to be registered, the registration of the union cannot be cancelled. There is no force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the persons who are not in service can have any dealings with the employer. Only the office holders can have dealings with the employer and not the members. In cases where two unions exist and the question is of the formation or registration of a third union, the ban is that at least such a union should have one‑fifth of the total number of employees employed in the establishment and if some such persons are made members who are not the employee and the number falls short of one‑fifth, the registration of such a union may be at stake. But this is not the case of the petitioner here. Only one union existed before respondent No.2 union was formed and registered. Learned counsel has admitted that by the exclusion of the persons from the membership of respondent No.2 union who are not the employees of the petitioner, the number of membership does not fall short and on this ground no question of cancellation of registration of the said union arises. This being so, it makes no difference if few members of respondent No.2 union are not the employees of the petitioner. When the question of determination of C.B.A. arises, the petitioner may raise an objection before the Registrar that certain members of the respondent No.2 union are not the employees of the petitioner and thus, could not take part in the referendum. But there is no ground for the cancellation E of respondent No.2 union, nor the petitioner has locus standi to make such a prayer under section 34, of the Ordinance. The petition thus, was rightly disallowed by the learned lower Court.
5. As a result, the revision fails and is dismissed in limine.
A.E. /371/Lb.P Revision dismissed.