2014 S C M R 1605 3/20/20, 10(01 PM

2014 S C M R 1605

[Supreme Court of Pakistan]

Present: Nasir-ul-Mulk, Amir Hani Muslim and Ijaz Ahmed Chaudhry, JJ

PEOPLE UNITY OF PIA EMPLOYEES CBA, KARACHI---Petitioner

Versus

The REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS (NIRC) ISLAMABAD and another---Respondents

Civil Petition No.541 of 2014, decided on 12th May, 2014.

(On appeal against the Order dated 9-4-2014 passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad, in Writ Petition
No.1621 of 2014)

(a) Industrial Relations Act (X of 2012)---

----Ss. 19(11), proviso & 19(9)(e)--- Constitution of Pakistan, Art.185(3)---Trade union---Membership of

more than 5000 members and presence in more than one Province---Entitled to function as Collective
Bargaining Agent ("CBA") for a term of 3 years---Procedure to be adopted by such trade union for seeking
benefit of 3 years---In terms of proviso to S. 19(11) of Industrial Relations Act, 2012, a trade union claiming
membership of more than 5000 and having presence in more than one province was required to provide
details before holding of the Referendum and once such details were available, the Registrar, in law, was
required to extend the term of such trade union to act as CBA for three years by issuance of a certificate, as
contemplated in S.19(9)(e) of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012---Such trade union, however, shall not
automatically get the term of three years to act as CBA---Trade union claiming three years term must
approach the Registrar with an application within reasonable time, in case the Registrar did not issue the
requisite certificate for the term of three years.

(b) Industrial Relations Act (X of 2012)---

----Ss. 19(11), proviso & 19(9)(e)---Trade union---Benefit of functioning as Collective Bargaining Agent
("CBA") for a term of 3 years---Delay in approaching Registrar for availing such benefit---Effect---Trade
union in question claimed that it had a membership of more than 5000 and had presence in more than one
Province, thus it was entitled to function as CBA for a term of three years in terms of proviso to S. 19(11) of
Industrial Relations Act, 2012---Validity---Trade union in question won the Referendum but did not approach
the Registrar to avail benefit of acting as CBA for 3 years in terms of proviso to S. 19(11) of Industrial
Relations Act, 2012---Trade union remained mum on this issue and only approached the Registrar when its
term to act as CBA had expired---Additionally on the date of Referendum, the Registrar had examined the
number of members of the trade union which was not more than 5000 so as to grant it the benefit of a 3 years
term to act as CBA---Issue of number of members claimed by the trade union ought to have been agitated
before the relevant forum, the moment the trade union was declared as CBA, but the same was not done for
more than 20 months and the Registrar had already announced the date of (next) Referendum---Trade union
in question could not avail the benefit of proviso to S. 19(11) of Industrial Relations Act, 2012, in such

https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/PrintCaseLaw?caseName=2014S861 Page 1 of 3
2014 S C M R 1605 3/20/20, 10(01 PM

circumstances---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed accordingly and leave was refused.

Raja M. Ibrahim Satti, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, M.A. Ghani Ch., Advocate-on-Record and Ch.
Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.

Abdul Hafeez Amjad, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No.2.

Date of hearing: 12th May, 2014.

JUDGMENT

AMIR HANI MUSLIM, J.---This Petition for leave to appeal is directed against order dated 9-4-2014 of the
learned Islamabad High Court, Islamabad, whereby the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

2. The Petitioner-Union filed a Writ Petition before the learned Islamabad High Court, claiming therein that
under the Proviso to subsection (11) of section 19 of the Industrial Relations Act 2012 (hereinafter referred to
as the Act), they were entitled to function as C.B.A. for a term of three years, inter alia, on the ground that
membership of the Union as verified by G.M Industrial Relations Division vide his certificate dated 11-3-
2014 was more than 5000 at the time of Referendum and thereafter the petitioner sought withholding of
Referendum for C.B.A and retrieval of facilities withheld by the Registrar vide its order dated 21-3-2014. The
Writ Petition was dismissed, vide impugned judgment. Hence this Petition for leave to appeal.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned High Court as well as the Chairman,
N.I.R.C. and the Registrar Trade Unions have misconstrued the Proviso to subsection (11) of section 19 of
the Act by denying them right to act as C.B.A for a period of three years. He further contended that pursuant
to the Referendum in P.I.A.C. held on 14-3-2012, the Petitioner-Union was declared successful, as it secured
3648 votes against total 8162 votes and was issued C.B.A certificate, which did not specify the term for
which they were to act as C.B.A. He next contended that the Petitioner-Union having more than 5000
Members and presence in different provinces was entitled to act as C.B.A for a term of three years. He
submits that within their term of two years on 7-3-2014, an application was made by the Petitioner-Union to
the Registrar, Trade Unions requesting that since their certificate do not spell out the period, therefore, in
terms of Proviso to subsection (11) of section 19, they were entitled to act as C.B.A for a term of three years.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners further contends that the forums below did not correctly dilate upon
the interpretation of Proviso to subsection (11) of section 19, whereas the learned High Court, without
touching the material issue, has misdirected itself by holding that the Registrar has correctly taken steps to
ensure democratic process for determination of C.B.A, therefore, the grievance of the Petitioner-Union is
without merit.

5. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 has supported the impugned judgment.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the record. For convenience
sake, Proviso to subsection (11) of section 19 is reproduced below:--

"(11) Where a registered trade union has been certified under clause (e) of section (9) and subsection (10) 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

https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/PrintCaseLaw?caseName=2014S861 Page 2 of 3
2014 S C M R 1605 3/20/20, 10(01 PM

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 the period:

Provided that for the trade unions having membership of more than five thousand and presence in more than
one province, the period of two years will be enhanced to three years."

7. The Proviso referred to hereinabove speaks about the term of trade union for a period of 3 years subject to
the conditions mentioned therein. In this respect, the Registrar of the Trade Unions is provided list of
Members of each contesting Trade Union as is reflected from the language of subsection (6) of section 19,
and the wisdom behind the Proviso to subsection (11) of section 19 is that on the date of Referendum, if a
Trade Union which has more than 5000 Members and has its presence in more than one province, contests
the election and succeeds, then such a Trade Union can seek benefit to act as C.B.A for a term of 3 years
instead of 2 years. Admittedly, in the case in hand, on the date when the Petitioner-Union was declared as
C.B.A, it did not make request to the Registrar for a the for three years.

8. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the Petitioner-Union was issued certificate to act as
C.B.A without specifying its term, therefore, the Petitioner-Union on 7-3-2014 applied for the clarification. It
appears that on the date when the Referendum was held, the Registrar had examined the number of Members
of the Petitioner-Union which was not more than 5000 so as to grant 3 years term. A plane reading of
aforesaid Proviso to subsection (11) suggests that a Trade Union claiming the Membership of more than 5000
and its presence in more than one province is required to provide details before holding of the Referendum
and once such details are available, the Registrar, in law, is required to extend the term for three years by
issuance of a certificate, as contemplated in section 19(9)(e). But this Proviso does not mandate that such
trade union shall automatically get the term of three years to act as C.B.A. The Proviso to the subsection has
to be read with the subsection (11) of section 19 of the Act. It clearly shows that a trade union claiming three
years term under the said Proviso must approach the Registrar with an application within reasonable time in
case the Registrar does not issue the requisite certificate for the term of three years. The Petitioner-Union
admittedly remained mum on this issue after the Referendum and approached the Registrar in March 2014
after the expiry of its term.

9. In the present case, the certificate issued to the Petitioner-Union on 11-3-2014 by the General Manager,
Industrial Relations Division would be of no help when the term of the Petitioner-Union has expired in March
2014 and date of Referendum has been announced in June, 2014. In the given circumstances, the Petitioner-
Union has failed to make out a case for grant of leave. The issue of number of members claimed by the
Petitioner-Union ought to have been agitated before the relevant forum, the moment the Petitioner Trade-
Union was declared as C.B.A and this having not been done for more than 20 months and the Registrar has
already announced the date of Referendum, the Petitioner-Union cannot avail the benefit of the afore-referred
Proviso.

10. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment of the High Court,
which could warrant interference by this Court. Consequently, this Petition is dismissed and leave refused.

MWA/P-11/SC Petition dismissed.

;

https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/PrintCaseLaw?caseName=2014S861 Page 3 of 3