2026 PLP 123 (PLC)

SHAUKAT AZIZ SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN.

The instant appeal under section 58 of IRA, 2012, directed against the orders dated 15.08.2024, passed by the learned Single Bench of the Commission, in case No. 20(07)/2024.

2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal are that the respondent No. 2 (All Pakistan Trade Union Federation Punjab) was registered by the Registrar Trade Unions Punjab vide certificate dated 19.02.2024. The appellant being aggrieved from the registration of the respondent No. 2 Federation approached the Commission by filing petition under Section 57(2)(5) read with 14 of IRA, 2012 for cancellation of the federation. The learned Single Bench vide order dated 15.08.2024 dismissed the petition with the following observations; - "The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that under section 57(3)(b) of the IRA, 2012, this Commission may direct the provincial RTU to cancel the respondent No.2 federation. This contention of learned counsel for the petitioner has no force because it is clear from the said section that this Commission can ask the provincial Registrar within whose jurisdiction the case has occurred or is likely to occur to enquire into it and submit a report regarding the cases of unfair labour practice of which the Commission is seized whereas the present case does not fall under the unfair labour practice of which this Commission is seized rather the provincial RTU has registered the trade union under the provisions of PIRA, 2010 which independently is competent to do so. At most, if there is any grievance to the petitioner, he may approach to the concerned RTU in that respect, hence the instant petition having no force is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. The petitioner federation may approach to the provincial RTU, Punjab in this regard in accordance with law if so advised. File be consigned to record room after due completion.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned Single Bench without appreciating the provisions of the IRA, 2012 has held that the same is not applicable to Provincial Registrar; that it is established principle that the provincial Registrar cannot entertain of proceed in a matter which falls within the jurisdiction of the Commission; that the appellant federation is registered by the Commission and the respondent No. 1 having no jurisdiction to entertain any application of registration with similar/identical name to the appellant's Federation; that under Section 57 of the IRA, 2012 the Commission has authority to direct the provincial registrar not to take cognizance of the matter falls within the jurisdiction of the Commission; that the appellant Federation is registered with the Commission from 16.09.2004 while the respondent No. 2 Federation with similar name has been registered by the respondent No.1 on 19.02.2024 by ignoring subsection (4) of Section 14 of the IRA, 2012 which clearly provides that no trade union, federation or confederation shall be formed and registered having same, similar on identical name; that the learned Single Bench without appreciating the record and submissions has passed the impugned order, merits to be set aside. The learned counsel for the appellant has prayed that the appeal may be accepted and the registration of respondent No.2 federation may also be cancelled.

4. The Learned Counsel for the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and the Respondent No. 3 herself contended that the learned Single Bench has rightly dismissed the petition filed for cancellation of the respondent federation; that the appeal is not maintainable as the same has been filed on the basis of authority letter and neither minutes of the said authorization nor the signatures of the members of the executive body have been brought on record; that the respondent No. 2 has been registered under the provision of Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010 and the NIRC has no jurisdiction to interfere in respect of the matters falls within provincial jurisdiction; that there is no similarity in the names as Punjab is clearly mentioned in the name of respondent No. 2 federation and also operate lawfully within its respective jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the respondents has prayed that the appeal may be dismissed. The Respondent No. 1 through reply almost took the similar stance and justified the registration process under the provisions of PIRA, 2010.

5. Arguments heard and record perused.

6. Before dilating upon question of law, we find it appropriate to provide admitted facts:- * Appellant registered as Federation with NIRC under IRO, 2002 on 06-09-20204 in the name and style of ALL PAKISTAN TRADE UNIONS FEDERATION. * Certificate of Registration bearing No. 7/2004 FORM 'C' in terms of Regulation 9 of the NIRC (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973 was issued by the Registrar. * The Registrar vide letter dated 06-09-2004 communicated to the General Secretary of the Federation (Appellant) with an intimation to the Provincial Registrars of Trade Unions Sindh, PUNJAB, Balochistan, NWFP and ICT. * Last internal election of the Appellant Federation was ordered to be held vide order dated 29-07-2015 passed by the then learned Member / RTU, but for multiple reasons and for the fact that rival groups of the Federation were locked in litigation, elections were not held till 2022. * Order dated 29-07-2015 was passed due to dispute between Fazal Wahid Group Respondent No. 3 (Ms. Aima Mehmood as General Secretary of the group) and Rubina Jamil group (Appellant). * The Authorized Officer vide order dated 22-11-2022 held as under:‑ In view of the above, it is held that Ms. Aima Mehmood was neither remain an office bearers of the Federation nor at present she has any office bearership of any of the affiliated union, therefore, to her extent the objection is accepted and she is not allowed to contest the election for the post of General Secretary of the Federation." The Authorized Officer drawn the conclusion in the following manner:- "For what has been discussed above, it can safely be held that the learned counsel appearing for M. Sarwar Group has failed to prove that Ms. Aima Mehmood and M. Mushtaq are office bearers of any of the affiliated union, hence, they cannot be allowed to participate in the internal election of the Federation. With the above discussions, there is no need to proceed with the matter any further or to follow the schedule already given. Hence, it is suggested that Masoom Ali, Inayat Ali Gujjar, M. Arif, Rubina Jameel, Sakhi Khan, M. Ilyas, M. Saleem, Syed Abid Hussain Shah, Nasir Gulzar, Bashir Ahmed, Rehmatullah Khan, Samina Fayyaz, Abid Ali, Arshad Ali, Amjad Khan are entitled to be declared as approved office bearers of the Federation unopposed. I am going to file a separate report before the learned Member for appropriate orders." * Change of office bearers was approved vide order dated 25-11-2022 and detail of office bearer was also issued, showing Rubina Jamil as General Secretary. * The Respondent No. 2 vide application dated 13-01-2023 applied for registration of the Federation as "ALL PAKISTAN TRADE UNION FEDERATION PUNJAB" to the Registrar of Trade Unions Punjab Lahore. * The RTU Punjab vide order dated 19-02-2024 allowed the application and issued certificate of Registration in the name of respondent No. 2.

7. In order to arrive at just conclusion we feel it appropriate to mention herein the relevant provision of law governing registration and jurisdiction of NIRC. Chapter-II Sections 3 to 18 of IRA, 2012 relate to Registration of Trade Unions / Federations and confederations. The controversy arisen between the parties to the lis revolves around Section 14 of the Act, ibid, for convenience same is supplied hereunder:- "Registration of federation of trade unions.

(1) Any two or more registered trade unions may, if their respective general bodies so resolve, constitute a federation by executing an instrument of federation whereas any four or more registered trade unions, (from any two or more provinces) may constitute a federation or confederation and apply to the Registrar for the registration of the federation: Provided that a trade union of workmen shall not join a federation which comprises a trade union of employers; nor shall a trade union of employers join a federation which comprises a trade union of workmen. (2) An instrument of federation referred to in subsection (1) shall, among other things, provide for the procedures to be followed by the federated trade unions and the rights and responsibilities of the federation and the federated trade union. (3) An application for the registration of a federation of trade unions shall be signed by the Presidents of all the trade unions constituting the federation or by the officers of these trade unions respectively authorized by the trade unions in this behalf and shall be accompanied by three copies of the instrument of federation referred to in subsection (1). (4) No trade union federation or confederation shall be formed and registered having same similar on identical name. (underlining by us) (5) Subject to subsections (1), (2), (3) and (4), the provisions of the Act shall, so far as may be and with the necessary modifications, apply to a federation of trade unions as they apply to a trade union." Above mandate of law makes it abundantly clear that no trade union, federation and confederation can be formed and seeks its registration having same, similar or identical name. There is no difference between the names of Appellant and Respondent No. 2 except that Respondent No. 2 added word Punjab at the end of "ALL PAKISTAN TRADE UNIONS FEDERATION" which is artful, cunning, deceptive, insidious and sneaking. Law does not only prohibit the registration if the name is same but if it is similar or identical in essence if names are alike and indistinguishable. The name of Respondent No. 2 conveys as if Respondent No. 2 is Punjab chapter of the Appellant. As mentioned in admitted facts the Appellant Federation was registered on 06-09-2004 and vide letter of even date this fact was communicated to the provincial Registrars including Respondent No.1. It appears that Respondent No. 1 did not hold a proper inquiry to ascertain the fact that name being used by the Respondent No. 2 already registered with NIRC, that too, two decades back. Moreover, the Respondent No. 3 did not disclose this fact at the time of filing application. The judicial record speaking loudly about the conduct of the Respondent No. 3, she claimed herself as component / member of the Appellant and made an attempt to contest internal elections of the Appellant Federation for the post of General Secretary but her nomination papers were rejected and an approval of change of office bearers was accorded on 25-11-2022. The Respondent No. 3 approached the Respondent No. 1 on 13-01-2023.

8. The IRA, 2012 is a Federal Statute, which empowers NIRC to take notice of certain acts and proceedings initiated before the learned Labour Courts and provincial RTUs. Section 57 of the Act, ibid vests additional powers on the Commission, subsections (2) and (5) are relevant for these proceedings, therefore, are handed hereunder:- "Section 57 Additional powers of the Commission.

(1) in addition to powers which the Commission has under this Act-- (a) the Commission shall have power to punish any person who obstructs or abuses its process or disobeys any of its orders or directions, or does anything which tends to prejudice the case of a party before it, or tends to bring it or any of its members in relation to proceedings of the Commission into hatred or contempt, or does anything which, by law, constitutes contempt of Court, with simple imprisonment which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees, or with both; and (b) for the purposes of any investigation, enquiry or adjudication to be made by the Commission under this Act, the Chairman or any member of the Commission may at any time between the hours of sunrise and sunset, and any other person authorised in writing by the Chairman or any member of the Commission in this behalf may, after he has given reasonable notice, enter any building, factory establishment, workshop or other place or premises whatsoever and inspect the same or any work, machinery, appliance or article therein or interrogate any person therein in respect of anything situated therein or any matter relevant to matters before the Commission; and (2) The Commission may, on the application of a party, or of it own motion, (a) initiate prosecution, trial or proceedings, or take action, with regard to any matter relating to its functions; (underlining by us) (b) withdraw from a Labour Court of Province any application proceedings or appeal relating to unfair labour practice, which fall within jurisdiction of the Commission; and (c) grant such relief as it may deem fit including interim injunction. 5) Save as provided in subsection (4) no Registrar, Labour Court or Labour Appellant Tribunal shall take any action, or entertain any application or proceedings, in respect of any matter which falls with the jurisdiction of the Commission: Provided that no Court, including Labour Court, shall take any action or entertain any application or proceedings in respect of a case of unfair labour practice which is being dealt with by the Commission. We are not convinced with the stance of the Respondents that PIRA, 2010 does not prohibit the registration of Unions / Federations with same, similar or identical name. Now, question is simple, would the Respondent No. 1 entertain any application for registration of another Federation in the name and style of the Respondent No. 2? Answer is uncomplicated the law of the land does not permit so. This is not a question related to a special law alone of the Provincial Statute but general law as well. The NIRC under the law empowered to take notice of issue in hand as the Respondent No.1 encroached upon the IRA, 2012 a procedural law which is enforced with retrospective effect from 01-05-2010. (Reference 2018 SCMR 802). We failed to understand that why the Respondent No. 1 did not ask for and inquire into as to whether any other Federation exists and registered in the name of applicant Federation, the Respondent No. 2 or not more particularly when factum of the registration of the Appellant was already communicated to him. The appellant being registered Federation with NIRC is its subject and any attempt to defeat accrued and established rights including intellectual property, has to be checked and noticed by us. IRA, 2012 being Federal Statute cannot be subservient to a provincial statute. We cannot sit as spectator when glaring illegality and patently colorable exercise of authority is reported to us. We are convinced that these material aspects, factual resume and object of law escaped notice of the learned Member, resulting into passing of the impugned order which is not sustainable in the eye of law which is hereby set aside.

9. The Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 raised an objection that instant appeal is not filed with proper legal authority as letter annexed with the power of attorney contains designation only and not the name of person being authorized. In our view answer to this objection is being provided by the list of office bearers approved by the NIRC, wherein name of Rubina Jamil as General Secretary is incorporated. We are satisfied that sufficient compliance of the requirement of law is evident. In the circumstances, stock of the above discussion is that registration of the Respondent No. 2 by the Respondent No. 1 is illegal, without jurisdiction, an infringement to the established intellectual right of the Appellant, therefore, same cannot hold the field. Accordingly we direct the Respondent No. 1 to commence the process of the cancellation of the registration of the Respondent No. 2 or allow to change the name by some other name dissimilar to the name of the Appellant and complete the process by 30-11-2025, with an intimation to the Registrar NIRC. The appeal is disposed of in above terms. MQ/1/NIRC Appeal allowed.