1984 PLP 1677 (PLC)

M. Farani, Bar‑at‑Law for Petitioner. This writ Petition is directed against order, dated 22nd February, 1984 of the learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal. Lahore whereby he rejected petitioner's revision petition against the order, dated 12th February, 1983 of the Punjab Labour Court, Lahore, dismissing petitioner's application for imp-leading them as party to the complaint lodged by the Registrar Trade Unions under section 10 (i) (ii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1909 for cancellation of registration of Habib Bank Workers Union.

2. On an information furnished by the Habib Bank Staff Union, Lahore Zone against respondent No. 4 to the Registrar, Trade Unions that the latter had procured registration in violation of the provision of 'section 10 (i) (ii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, the Regis trar Trade Unions, Lahore Region, Lahore, made complaint to the Punjab Labour Court for cancellation of the registration of respondent No.

4. During the pendency of the complaint before the Punjab Labour Court the petitioner moved application for imp-leading him as party to the same, but his prayer was refused and the complaint against the respondent No. 4 was rejected. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order in revision before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore which was dismissed on 22nd February, 1984 as aforesaid. Hence this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner being Collective Bargaining Agent on behalf of the workers was entitled to be impleaded as party to the proceedings, before the Punjab Labour Court, particularly when on his information, proceedings for cancellation of the registration were initiated by the Registrar. It was also stated that the respondent No. 4 had violated the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance not only after securing registration as Trade Union but in the course of registration as well. ' It was argued that holding of valid registration certificate was condition precedent for participation in the referendum by the trade unions.

4. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner have been considered but I find myself not persuaded to interfere in, the impugned order. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner was acting as Collective Bargain ing Agent on behalf of the Workers since 1971, the respondent No. 4 after securing registration as Trade Union sought holding of referendum for becoming Collective Bargaining Agent, for the establishment. It appears that the Registrar after taking into cognizance the irregularities pointed out by the petitioners, lodged complaint against respondent No. 4 only on the ground that the latter did not maintain forms 'D' and `E' as required under the law. The irregularity pointed out against respondent No. 4 was later on cured and the complaint was dropped. The respondents Nos.1 and 2 while disallowing the petitioner's appeal held that‑the matter, out of which the complaint had arisen rested with the Registrar and the respondent No. 4, as such was not proper authority.

5. So far respondent No. 4's registration as Trade Union has not been cancelled and the complaint lodged against him in that behalf has failed. It would be too late for the petitioner to raise objection against the registration of respondent No. 4 as trade Union which would frustrate the referendum proceedings. If the petitioner has not lost support o workers, he would maintain his status as Collective Bargaining Agent on behalf of the establishment in the referendum proceedings. 6. 1n the result, I find no merit in this petition and the same, is, therefore, dismissed in limine. A. E. Petition dismissed.