' SYED ZAWWAR HUSSAIN JAFRY, J---Through this Constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- -
(a) Quash the impugned order dated 6-2-2002.
(b) Direct the respondent No,1 to issue Collective Bargaining Agent Certificate under section 22(1) of I.R.O. 1969 in favour of petitioner-union to represent the permanent workers employed by the respondent No,2.
(c) Direct the respondent No,1 to issue Provisional Certificate of CBA in favour of petitioner-union till the final disposal of the petition and or alternatively the respondent No,2 be directed to treat the petitioner-union as recognized union to perform the functions of CBA union until certificate of CBA issued; meanwhile impugned order by suspended.
(d) Any other relief/reliefs deemed fit and proper under the circumstances of the case be also granted; Cost of the petition be also allowed in the interest of justice.
2. The brief facts of the case as enumerated in the petition are that the petitioner is a registered union in respect of the workers employed directly by the respondent No,2 on permanent job to carry out operation duties, both skilled and unskilled in connection with the business and affairs of the respondent No,2. The respondent No,2 is carrying out the business of loading and unloading containers, to and from the ship at Port Qasim Berth Nos.5, 6 and 7. The respondent No,2 has built Container Terminal on B.O.O. Under the agreement with Government of Pakistan Port Qasim Authority and its lease was for a period of 30 years. The petitioner-union was formed on 11-2-2001, an application was submitted for its registration on 12-2-2001 along with necessary documents on which respondent No,1 raised objections which were removed by the petitioner but the respondent No,1 delayed its registration at the instance of respondent No,2 and thereby acted mala-fidely. The respondent No,1 sent the file to Law Department for their opinion, with sole object to delay the matter, whereas under section 8 of IRO, 1969 the union is to be registered or refused within 15 days.
The petitioner-union wrote letter to the respondent No,1 but no action was taken and matter was delayed, but however union was registered on 3-1-2002. The petitioner-union apprehended commission of acts of unfair labour practice due to the action of union, as such, filed a case before the learned Member NIRC at Karachi Camp, on the said petition ad interim orders were passed restraining respondents, removal from employment which orders were confirmed by the consent of parties but the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution. The Port Qasim Authority issued pre- qualification conditions for handling Cargo at Port Qasim on Berth Nos.2,3 and 4, previously it was also for Berth Nos.5, 6 and 7. The petitioner-union being only registered Trade Union applied for Collective Bargaining Agent Certificate under section 22(1) of I.R.O., 1969 along with membership list on 13-1-2002 but the respondent No,1 without considering the facts of case at the instance of A respondent No,2 refused to issue CBA Certificate and it was pleaded that HCA No,249 of 2001 filed by the Port Muhammad Bin Qazim Harbour and Dock Workers Union regarding CBA status in Q.I.C.T.
Is pending in this Court. This information was conveyed to the petitioner-union vide letter dated 6- 2-2002 which is impugned in this petition.
3. Mr. Muhammad Shafiq Qureshi learned counsel for petitioner has contended that the respondent No,1 has committed illegality in rejecting the application of petitioner for issuing CBA certificate- under section 22(1) of LRO, 1969. Although, the petitioner union had more than 1/3rd membership out of the total strength of worbers employed by the respondent No,2. The Port Muhammad Bin Qasim Harbour'and Dock Workers Union also claims to be CBA union in respect of Dock, Workers employed or to be employed at Port Qasim as defined under the Dock Labourers Act, 1934, and Dock Workers (Regulation Emp.) Act, 1974. Whereas the petitioner-union applied for CBA Certificate in respect of permanent workers employed directly on permanent job by respondent No,2 who are workmen under West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (S.0s.) Ordinance, 1968.
According to the learned counsel the respondent No,1 committed illegality on the fact of ignoring that the said Port Muhammad Bin Qasim Harbour and Dock Workers Union is not the registered Trade Union of workers employed by respondent No,2 nor its constitution, provides the members of respondent No,2. He further urged that the rejection of application of the petitioner the fundamental rights of petitioner and its members and is perpetuating injustice by the respondent No,1 ignoring the object of IRO, 1969: Learned counsel further contended that the petitioner is entitled to CEA Certificate under section 22(1) of IRO, 1969.
4. Mr. Mehmood Abdul Ghani learned counsel for respondent No,2 has vehemently opposed this petition and submitted that the petitioner has admitted in this petition for the pendency of HCA No,249/2001 in this Court and the impugned order, is only an information to the petitioner on the basis of application moved by the petitioner on 13-1-2002 and the said order cannot be challenged in writ jurisdiction. In support of his arguments Mr. Mehmood Abdul Ghani has relied upon the case of Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Registrar, Industrywise Trade Union (2002 PLC 145) and Rice Export Corporation Labour Union v. Full Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission (1992 PLC 125).
5. Mr. Khalid Imran learned counsel for respondent No,3 has also opposed this petition and submitted that the Certificate was issued to the petitioner as CBA and against that order an appeal is also pending. The petitioner has claimed in this petition for quashment of the order dated 6-2-2002 which has been issued by the Directorate of Labour (East Division) on the basis of application moved by the petitioner. He has also relied on the case viz Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Registrar, Industrywise Trade Union (2002 PLC 145).
6. Chaudhry Muhammad Ashraf Khan learned counsel for the Intervenor has adopted the arguments advanced by M/s Mehmood Abdul Ghani and Khalid Imran Advocates.
7. Mr. Abbas Ali learned Additional Advocate-General for the official respondent has raised point, about the maintainability of this petition. According to him the impugned order/letter dated 6-2- 2004 is an information and fact regarding pendency of HCA No,249/2001 which is pending in this Court, filed by Port Muhammad Bin Qasim Harbour and Dock Workers Union regarding CBA status in Q.I.C.T. As no adverse order has been passed against the petitioner therefore petition is liable to be dismissed.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties examined the record and case-law cited at bar.
9. From perusal of the impugned order/letter dated 6-2-2002 it is obvious that petitioner had moved an application to the Directorate of Labour dated 13-1-2002 which was received in the office of respondent No,1 on 14-1-2002 for seeking CBA certificate under section 22(1) of I.R.O., 1969, therefore, the information was conveyed to the petitioner that application as referred above was rejected by the respondent No,1 and the said order has been challenged in the appeal being HCA No,249/2001 which is pending in this Court filed by Port Muhammad Bin Qasim Harbour and Dock Workers Union and same is still pending in which interim relief was granted. The said interim relief still holding the field. The petitioner in Para 'C' of the grounds of his petition has admitted regarding pendency of HCA No,249 of 2001. It is manifest that no direction can be passed for the respondent No,1 to issue CBA certificate under section 22(1) of I.R.O., 1969 in favour of petitioner-union till the HCA No,249/2001 is finally decided. This is pre-mature petition filed by the petitioner as the impugned order dated 6-2-2002 is not passed against the petitioner. In view of the above discussion no relief can be granted to the petitioner to set aside the impugned letter/order of respondent No,1. The petition is misconceived and same is dismissed with cost.