1995 PLP 443 (PLC)

"

13. Powers and functions of Registrar.‑‑‑(1) The following shall be the powers and functions of the Registrar:‑‑ (a) the registration of trade unions under this Ordinance and the maintenance of a register for this purpose; (b) to lodge, or authorise any person to lodge, complaints with the Labour Court or Commission for action, including prosecution, against trade unions, employers, workers or other persons for any alleged offence of any unfair labour practice or violation of any provision of this Ordinance or for expending the funds of a trade union in contravention of the provisions of its Constitution; (c) 'the determination of the question as to which one of the trade unions in an establishment or an industry is entitled to be certified as the collective bargaining agent in relation to that establishment or industry: . (cc) to inspect the accounts and record of the registered trade unions,. Or investigate or hold such inquiry as he deems fit, either himself or through any officer subordinate to and authorised in writing, in this behalf by him; and (d) such other powers and functions as may be prescribed."

10. Section 8 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, on which learned counsel for both the parties relied, is as follows:‑ "

8. Registration.‑‑‑(1) Registrar, on being satisfied that the trade union has complied with all the requirements of this Ordinance, shall register the trade union in a prescribed register and issue a registration certificate in the prescribed form within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of the application. In case the application is found by the Registrar to be deficient in a material respect or respects he shall communicate in writing his objections to the trade union within a period of 15 days from the receipt of the application and the trade union shall reply thereto within a period of fifteen days from the receipt of the objections. (2) When the objections raised by the Registrar have been satisfactorily met, the Registrar shall register the trade union as provided in subsection (1) and issue a certificate of registration in the prescribed form within three days of the date of the objections having been so met. In case the objections are not satisfactorily met, the Registrar may reject the application. (3) In case the application has been rejected or the Registrar has delayed disposal of the application beyond the period of fifteen days provided in subsection (1) or has not issued a certificate of registration within a period of three days as provided in subsection (2) as the case may be, the trade union may appeal to the Labour Court who for reasons to be stated in its judgment may pass an order directing the Registrar to register the trade union and to issue a certificate of registration or may dismiss the appeal. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Ordinance, every alteration made in the constitution of a registered trade union and every change of its officers shall be notified by registered post by the trade union to the Registrar within fifteen days of such change. (5) The Registrar may refuse to register such change or alteration if it is in contravention of any of the provisions of this Ordinance, or if it is in violation of the constitution of the trade union. (6) Subject to the provisions of subsection (5) every inclusion or exclusion of any constituent unit of a federation of trade unions shall be notified by registered post by the federation to the Registrar within fifteen days of such inclusion or exclusion. (7) In case there is a dispute in relation to the change of officers of a trade union, or any trade union is aggrieved by refusal of the Registrar (Sharif Hussain Bokhari, J) under subsection (5) any officer or member of the trade union may, apply or appeal to the Labour Court, who shall within seven days of receipt of the application. or appeal, as the case may be, pass an order either directing the Registrar to register the change or alteration in the constitution or in the officers of the trade union, or may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, direct the Registrar to hold fresh elections of the union under his supervision."

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to subsection (5) of 4 Section 8 to contend that the Registrar can refuse to register the change in 6ffice‑bearers only when it is shown to him that the change was made in contravention of any of the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, or in violation of the constitution of the trade union. According to him, since both these conditions were not present, the Registrar was under obligation to register the change which took place on 29‑9‑1994 and was notified to him by the petitioner, and by not doing so he has acted without jurisdiction.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that under section 8(5) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, read with Rule 4 of the Punjab Industrial Relations Rules, 1973, no such inquiry as ordered by the Registrar through respondents 2 and 3 is contemplated, therefore, the same is a nullity in law. He referred to Karachi Warehouse and Carriers Workers' Union v. Pakistan Warehouse Carriers Workers' Union and 3 others (PLD 1978 Karachi 417) to contend that the inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer as to be ignored and the Registrar is to act upon the application submit by the petitioner with regard to elections of 29‑9‑1994 and the changes made in office‑bearers in consequence thereof.

13. On the question of alternate‑adequate remedy learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the Murree Brewery Co. Ltd. v. Pakistan through the Secretary to Government of Pakistan, Works Division and 2 others (PLD 1972 SC 279) to contend that since the Registrar has acted without jurisdiction, the writ petition is competent in this Court without availing the alternate remedy before the learned Labour Court.

14. Ch. Mushtaq Masood, learned counsel for respondent No.4, denied the allegations made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that as a matter of fact, fresh elections took place on 22‑9‑1994. According to him, every such change could be notified to the Registrar by the union within fifteen days of such change, as provided under subsection (4) of section, 8 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. Since the change which took place on 22‑9‑1994 was notified to the Registrar on 29‑9‑1994, the mandatory previsions of section 8 ere followed and, accordingly, the Registrar was bound to register the said change. He also contended that the Registrar had power to appoint Inquiry Officer to make inquiry in accordance with Rule 8 of the said Rules read with section 13(1)(CC) of the Ordinance. He also referred to subsection (7) of section 8 of the ,Ordinance and contended that the aggrieved party against the order of the Registrar has the remedy before the Labour Court.

15. The representative of the Registrar, Trade Unions, who appeared in r Court on almost all the dates of hearing, admitted that inquiry was ordered to be conducted and the report was also submitted by the Inquiry Committee t the Registrar, but submitted that no order had yet been passed by the Registrar, therefore, the writ petition was premature.

16. Without going into the merits of the case, the present writ petition can be disposed of on the basis of the preliminary objection that the Registrar, 'Trade Unions (respondent No.1) has not so far given any decision one way or the other. He has yet to pass order to register the change or refuse to register the change which took place on 29‑9‑1994, as claimed by the petitioner , or which, according to respondent No.4, took place on 22‑9‑1994. Under subsection (4) of section 8 of the Ordinance every change in the office‑bearers of the Union is to be notified to the Registrar of Trade Unions, by registered post, within fifteen days of such change, and the Registrar, under subsection (5) of section 8 may refuse to register such a change if the same is in contravention of any of the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, or if it is in violation of the Constitution of the Union. In the absence of these two situations, the Registrar shall register the change with regard to the office -bearers so notified to him by the Trade Union.

17. Admittedly, the Registrar has not passed any order so far refusing to register or certifying the change in the office‑bearers of the Union. He has also not given many decision whether any election was held on 22‑9‑1994 or 29‑9‑1994. In this view of the matter, it is quite clear that the writ petition is premature. In somewhat similar circumstances, a learned Division Bench of this Court in Sheela B. Charles 'v. Election Tribunal (1995 CLC 344) observed as follows:‑‑ "The impugned order dated 9‑8‑1994 has not finally disposed of the matter and decided the election petitions. Even after the recount of the ballot papers, as directed by the learned Election tribunal, the election petitions have to be finally decided by the learned Election Tribunal. The impugned order will merge in the final decision of the Election Tribunal, which is subject to appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court under section 67 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976. The impugned order is only an interlocutor one, therefore, cannot be challenged in these writ petitions unless shown to be without jurisdiction. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the case of "Ijaz Shafi v. Ali Ashraf Shah" (PLD 1994 SC 867) that objection' with regard to non‑maintainability of appeal against interlocutory order of the Tribunal is correct as per scheme of the said Act and legal position enunciated in the case‑law on the subject. The petition is still pending before the learned Tribunal and final order is yet to be passed against which appeal could competently be filed before the learned Supreme Court. In this judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also relied on its previous judgments in the cases of "Mahmood Azam Faruqui v. Maulana Muhammad Shafi" (1974 SCMR 471), Mian Zahid Sarfraz v. Raja Nadir Pervaiz" (1987 SCMR 1107), "Habibul Wahab Alkhairi v. Shaikh Rashid Ahmad" (PLD 1989 SC 760) and "Bhagwandas v. The Returning Officer"‑(1990 SCMR 1228):" Further, under subsection (7) of section 8 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, where there is a dispute in relation to the change of office‑bearers of a Trade Union, or when the Trade Union is aggrieved by the refusal of the Registrar to register change under subsection (5) of section 8 any officer or a member of the Trade Union may apply to the Labour Court concerned, or may file appeal before the Labour Court against the decision/order of the Registrar. The Labour Court is empowered to direct the Registrar to register the change, or may, for reasons, direct the Registrar to hold fresh elections of the union under his own supervision. At this stage, the writ petition is not competent as no final order has been passed by the Registrar, Trade Unions (respondent No. 1) on the application of the petitioner or that of respondent No.4, and even if he refuses the application of either party, adequate and efficacious remedy is provided under subsection (7) of section 8 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance.

18. In the light of the above discussion the present writ petition is not competent and is accordingly dismissed in limine. AA./A‑790/L Petition dismissed