1. ' JUSTICE (RETD.) TANVIR AHMAD KHAN (CHAIRMAN)--Petitioner Muhammad Jawad Hussain filed this matter as an appeal under section 52 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 (hereinafter referred to be an Ordinance) taking exception to the order of respondent No,1 Deputy Registrar, NIRC dated 22-12-2004 whereby his application for contesting the election upon the seat of Secretary General NBP Employees Union Central Circle Punjab-Islamabad as an independent candidate was rejected holding that after.His promotion as an Officer of Grade-III he is no more worker.
2. The Registrar treating it as an appeal inadvertently fixed the matter. However, when the entire documents were examined, it came to light that an appeal before the Full Bench under section 52 of the Ordinance is not available as such it has been treated as a petition particularly so when the impugned order is administrative in nature.
3. ' It is inter alia argued by the learned counsel that this petition is to be heard by a Full Bench of three Members as required under section 52 of the Ordinance. His stance is that the assumption of jurisdiction by this Court is against law. He has further stated that after his promotion to the Officer Grade-III the duties have remained the same and petitioner's contribution to the Union fund is also being deducted under section 21 of the Ordinance. Apart from the afore-stated arguments learned counsel who also appeared in connected Petition No,7A(52)/04 has challenged the function of the Deputy Registrar after his authorization as according to him the election is to be held under the directions of the Labour Court. Exception has also been taken to the charge of nomination fee.
4. ' I have given my consideration to the entire facts of this case. It is pertment to mention at the very outset that the connected Petition bearing No,7A(52)/04 filed by Abdul Latif Qureshi raising the similar points has been dismissed by me through a detailed order of even date as such the reasons stated therein be read as an integral part of this order.
5. ' The plea that this petition be treated as an appeal and is to be heard by a FullBench of the Commission is devoid of any force. Section 52 of the Ordinance provides for the appeal which is in the following terms:--
52. "Appeals.---(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in thisOrdinance, or in any other law for the time being in force, any person aggrieved by an award or decision given or a sentence or order determining and certifying a collective bargaining unit passed by any Bench of the Commission, other than Full Bench, may, within thirty days of such award, decision, sentence or order, prefer an appeal to the Commission.
(2) An appeal preferred to the Commission under subsection (1) shall be disposed of by the Full Bench of the Commission which shall have the power to confirm, set aside, vary or modify such award, decision, sentence or order."
6. Reading of this section leaves no manner of doubt that the appeals are provided before the Full Bench against the decision of any Bench of the Commission. The present impugned 'order is administrative in nature and has not been passed by any Bench of the Commission as such it has been treated as a petition.
7. ' In the case in hand the petitioner himself' submitted an application on 20th December, 2004 before the Deputy Registrar NIRC which was in the following terms: "It is respectfully submitted that despite the fact pointed in my earlier application, my name is not added in the list of workmen/members of the Umon whereas I am regularly paid member of the Union for the last many years. It reveals that my name is getting missing attentionally enabling me to participate in the election as an office-bearer.
8. ' Kindly look into the matter as my privilege to contest election is looking jeopardized. I hope your goodself will get entered my name in the list which will avoid unnecessary legal complication."
9. The Deputy Registrar immediately on receipt of the application took up the matter and found out that the petitioner's name was not included in the list of the members of the Union secured by him from the Secretary General of the Union Mr. Akbar Ali Khan. He also obtained list of workers from the management. The sanctity of the said list was fortified by Mr. Kokab lqbal as stated in the connected order. The Deputy Registrar also took up the issue with the Secretary General as well as with the management. The reply of Secretary General Akbar Ali Khan is as under:-- "With reference to your Letter No,13(72)/04 dated 20-12-2004, I hereby explain that due to promotion of Mr. Muhammad Jawad Hussain, Cashier, as Officer Grade-III P/F No,824107 has already been promoted vide NBP, Regional Office, Multan Letter No,ROM/HRM/PROM/6871 dated 18-11-2004 has not been included in the list by us and also by the Bank's management."
10. ' The reply of the management duly signed by General Manager (HRM) dated 21-12-2004 is as under: "Kindly refer to your Letter No,13 (72)/04 dated 20-12-2004 on the captioned subject. We advise that above named Cashier has been promoted as Officer Grade-III w.e.f, 1-1-2004. Therefore, his name was not included in list of unionized staff provided by us. A copy of acceptance letter of the above named is enclosed for your kind perusal."
11. ' Aforestated resume demonstrates that the Deputy Registrar has not committed any illegality. He is required to conduct the election in accordance with the list provided to him by the Secretary General of the Union. The sanctity of the list so provided by the Secretary General has been accepted by the contesting groups of the Union. Petitioner himself has stated in his application that his name was not included in the voters list. He has accepted his promotion through which his duties has considerably been changed. In such a scenario Deputy Registrar has not committed any illegality. He has only informed him about the present state of affairs of the voters list through an administrative order. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner was allowed promotion w.e.f, 1-1-2004 and accepted the same. If he is aggrieved of his exclusion of his name from the Union, he has to approach by availing the appropriate remedy. The plea that his subscription is being deducted in accordance with section 21 of the Ordinance would not be of any assistance to him. The payment of salary is computerized. The deduction, if any, is being made according to the data fed to the Computer. The petitioner has to substantiate his stance through production of evidence that in spite of his promotion to the post of Officer Grade-III and change of duties, he still comes within the definition of workman. As already stated, if he is aggrieved of his exclusion of his name from the Union membership by virtue of his promotion he has to avail the appropriate remedy..
12. ' In this view of the matter, the plea of stay of election proceedings cannot be entertained as already stated in the order of even date in connected petition. This is the third time when the internal election is being held due to the dispute amongst warring groups of the Union. Resultantly for what has been stated, the petition having no force is dismissed.