Brief facts leading to this writ petition are that Registrar Trade Unions-Respondent No, 1 has registered Respondent No, 2 and certified as CBA in the petitioner's establishment; simultaneously Respondent No, 1 also registered Respondent No, 3 for the other unit/branch of Colony Sugar Mills Ltd. in Tehsil Mianchanu, District Khanewal. According to the petitioner's contentions representative of the petitioner approached Respondent No, 1, pointed out serious violation of law in the process of registration and certification as CBA of Respondent No, .2 but Respondent No, 1 refused to consider any objection of the petitioner and even refused the suggestion of the petitioner to refer the complaint before the Labour Court as per provisions of Section 12 of the IRO 2002 and this was all due to political influence of Respondents No, 2 and 3.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to illegal and unlawful acts of Respondent No, 1, Respondent No, ,2 trade union, which was registered in contravention to the mandatory provisions of IRO 2002, started raising illegal demands and started threatening and pressurizing the petitioner management for the fulfillment of their illegal demands in addition to a threat to go on illegal strike. Accordingly, the petitioner filed a petition before the learned NIRC to avoid any ' untoward and unwarranted incident where the learned NIRC directed Respondent No, 2 not to take the law in their own hands, however, the said petition is still pending. The petitioner also moved a petition before the Labour Court No, 9, Multan against Respondents No, 1 and 3 but prior to registration of Respondent No, 3-trade union, praying to stop Respondent No, 1 from illegal registration of trade union of Respondent No, 3 where the learned Labour Court vide order dated 28.06.2008 directed Respondent No, 1 to follow the provisions of IRO 20Q2 strictly but even then Respondent No, 1 did not comply with the orders of the learned Labour Court and registered the trade union of Respondent No, 3 on 30.06.2008 which otherwise amounts to contempt of Labour Court's proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the basis of illegal registration Respondent No, 2 submitted a Charter of Demands followed by a conciliation notice started creating harassm ent by holding illegal gate meetings and instigated workers against the management at the unit located at Chak Karmanwala, Tehsil Phalia, District Mandi Bahauddin and is planning to serve the strike notice resulting into destruction of petitioner's company's property, injuries to the security guards and workers and thereafter registration of FIR No, 195/08 under Sections 148, 149, 506, 427 PPC and all this happened only due to the unlawful acts of Respondent No, 1 and due to this serious development a lay off was to be announced for 14 days with effect from 01.07.2008. Adds that as per the provisions of IRO 2002 a trade union in an establishment (with more than one units) must be registered on provincial level, thus the only Director Labour Punjab being the Registrar at Punjab level had the jurisdiction to register the trade union of the petitioners establishment, whereas in the present controversy the registration of trade unions by Respondent No, 1 is an act tainted with malice, which is also reflected from Respondent No, l's actions of non- associating the petitioner in the verification of process, conducting the inquiry in the absence of the petitioner culminating the registration of Respondent Nos, 2 and 3 a void act of Respondent No, 1 calls for interference of this Court. Further submits that as Respondent No, 1 refused to consider the petitioner's complaints in respect of registration of Respondents No, 2 and 3, the petitioner cannot move before the Labour Court due to the provisions of IRO 2002, hence the petitioner prays that the registration of Respondents No, 2 and 3 as trade unions/CBA be declared illegal.
3. On the other hand, Registrar Trade Unions-Respondent No, 1 appeared in person, categorically refuted the allegations of petitioner which were levelled against him and submits that during the course of registration of Respondents No, 2 and 3 he took every care provided every opportunity to all concerns so that they could explain their contentions before him and after inquiring each and every aspect of the matter, he proceeded strictly in accordance with law.
4. During the course of arguments Respondent No, 1, who appeared in person, candidly submitted that he shall have no objection if the matter is remitted to the Provincial Registrar of Trade Unions for a fresh exercise but simultaneously submits that it shall be an exercise in futility because he himself did his best to satisfy all the requirements of law before registering the Respondents No, 2 and 3.
5. Mr. Khalid Mahmood Wattoo, Advocate, argued the case on behalf of Respondents No, 2 and 3 at length and submits with vehemence that the writ petition is not competent as the petitioner can avail an alternate remedy which is available to him as per provisions of Section 33 of the IRO 2002.
Further submits that the petitioner has already approached the Punjab Labour Court No, 9, Multan so in the presence of pendency of that petition before the learned Labour Court, writ cannot proceed and even if the petitioner fails before the Labour Court, he can file appeal before the High Court under Section 48 of the IRO 2002. Further submits that before the registration/certification of Respondent No, 2 as CBA the petitioner did not file any objection before Respondent No, 1, meaning thereby that the petitioner is estopped by his own conduct to raise the objections before this Court.
Adds that the petitioner has concealed the material facts from this Court which is a sufficient ground for the dismissal of the writ petition, which otherwise is filed without having any locus standi. The learned counsel referred certain letters in support of his contentions that despite providing every opportunity to the petitioner by Respondent No, 1 for the verification of facts, the petitioner establishment did not cooperate with the Registrar rather sidetracked the issue with ulterior motive. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied on a series of judgments.
6. Learned counsel for Respondent No, 3 also adopts, the arguments of learned counsel for Respondent No, 2.
7. Arguments heard. Record perused.
8. The foremost point which requires to be resolved in the present controversy is that whether the petitioner has an alternate remedy for the redressal of his grievance or not and for that we have to advert to the plain reading of specific provisions of IRO 2002. Applicable provision is Section 12 of the Ordinance, which is reproduced as under:-- "Cancellation of registration.--(1) The registration of a trade union shall be cancelled if the Labour Court so directs upon a complaint in writing made by the Registrar that the trade union has--
(i) contravened or has been registered in contravention of, any of the provisions of this Ordinance or the rules made thereunder,
(ii) contravened any of the provisions of its Constitution; or (iii) made in its Constitution any provision which is inconsistent with this Ordinance or the rules made thereunder."
9. It is well settled law laid down by the apex Court in a series of judgments that "if a thing is required to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner only and not otherwise".
10.In the present controversy, the petitioner seriously objected the act of Respondent No, 1 regarding registration of trade unions by putting its emphasis that despite objections Respondent No, 1 did not advert to those objections, did not participate the petitioner in any inquiry if conducted by the Registrar Respondent No, 1, resulting into serious miscarriage of justice. When these contentions of the petitioner are put in juxtaposition to the provisions of Section 12 of the IRO 2002, it shall remain crystal clear that for the redressal of its grievance the petitioner cannot invoke the jurisdiction of Labour Court because the right for invoking the jurisdiction of Labour Court in respect of cancellation of trade unions rests with Registrar and not with the employer. It is to be noticed that when the Registrar is determined to support his action of registration of certain trade unions, then no question arises for lodging a complaint by the Registrar before the Labour Court for the. cancellation of registration of a trade union and this is the main crux of the present case.
Practically, in such like situation a complaint should have made before the Labour Court for proper resolving of issue by the Registrar when the establishment questions the bona fide of the Registrar's action, but in the present case Respondent No, 1-Registrar did not opt to exercise his discretion for filing the complaint before the Labour Court but it is appreciable that during the course of arguments even today in the open Court the Registrar-Respondent No, 1 expressed his opinion in so many words that he shall have no objection if the matter is remitted to the Provincial Registrar for re-examination and further process.
11. Without discussing all points raised by both sides, I feel it appropriate to confine myself to resolution of present controversy in accordance with law.
12. So far the maintainability of writ petition is concerned, suffice it to refer to law laid down in the cases of K.P.T. Progressive Workers Union vs. Registrar of Trade Unions and others (2000 PLC 376), S.G. Fibre Employees' Union through General Secretary vs. Registrar of Trade Unions, Government of Sindh and 5 others (2003 PLC 58), Messrs Karachi Customs Agents Group through President and 3 others vs. The Registrar of Trade Unions, Sindh (2005 PLC 51), Lucky Textile Mills through Managing Partner vs. Mazdoor Union of Lucky Textile Mills through General Secretary and 3 others (2007 PLC 366) and a recent judgment reported as Muslimabad Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. through Secretary vs. Mrs. Siddiqa Faiz and others (PLD 2008 SC 135). In all the judgments referred above, it is unanimously resolved that despite availability of alternate remedy available to the petitioner it is not a Rule of law barring jurisdiction of High Court but a Rule by which the Court regulates its jurisdiction. When a statutory functionary acts in a partial, unjust and oppressive mariner, then the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction has power to grant relief to the aggrieved party. As observed earlier I am not inclined to go into the details of present case, suffice it to say that the petitioner has levelled certain allegations of its non-association in the inquiry if conducted by Respondent No, 1, non-providing a fair reasoned opportunity to place its objections, non- deciding the petitioner's well reasoned objections in its true perspective by the Registrar with particularity of Registrar's own statement before this Court today that he shall have no objection if the matter is referred back to any other Registrar, then it shall be appropriate to remand the matter to Provincial Registrar.
13. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned registrations stand set aside and the matter is remanded to the Provincial Registrar of Trade Unions with a direction to consider the applications of Trade Unions afresh, conduct impartial inquiry in the matter, provide fair opportunity to the petitioner to contest the applications, resolve the objections of the petitioner and then proceed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Writ petition is allowed accordingly.