1. AHMED ALI M. SHAIKH, J.--- Briefly facts giving rise to this petition are that petitioner is the Registered Trade Union of the workers employed in Shabbir Tiles and Ceramics Limited, respondent No,3. On 22-2-2011 the petitioner made an application to the respondent No,1 for determination of Collective Bargaining Agent (CBA) and after finalization of voters list, 382 voters were found eligible and referendum was fixed on 5-4-2011(?). According to the petitioner, in the referendum 380 votes were polled out of which petitioner secured 197 votes while the rival union, respondent No,2 secured 182 votes. Accordingly, orally petitioner union was announced successful. Subsequently, the grievance of the petitioner is that result sheets were changed altered and respondent No,2 union were declared successful. On same day, the petitioner lodged protest with the respondent No,1 seeking, issuance of CBA certificate in its favour or holding referendum again.
2. ' Inter alia, it is contended by the learned counsel that the impugned result of referendum whereby respondent No,2 Union was declared successful was based on cheating, fraud and rigging as on the one hand after polling initially the petitioner Union was declared successful but later on at the back of the petitioner, respondent No,2 was declared successful. According to him, after initial announcement of referendum results and declaration of the petitioner as successful, the respondent No,1 illegally did not issue CBA certificate to the petitioner. According to the learned Counsel in the instant case there is glaring violation of Rule 30 of Industrial Relations (Sindh) Rules, 1973, as the Polling Officer has failed to issue Form "R" and sent the proper result sheet to the respondent No,1 whereby the petitioner secured 197 votes, which vitiates the whole exercise. He further submitted that signature of petitioner's agent was obtained on a plain paper with the sole object to deprive the petitioner of their mandate to represent the workers.
3. ' Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents raised objections as to the very maintainability of the petition as neither any document nor any material evidence has been placed on record to show that referendum was held in an illegal manner or any fraud, rigging or cheating or manipulation in the result has been made.
4. From the pleadings and arguments of the learned counsel it appears that there is no dispute with regard to either polled votes or number of casted votes. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has miserably failed to substantiate his contention that results were manipulated or altered/changed and success of the petitioner Union was turned into defeat and could not pinpoint or referred to any document available on record. The respondent No,1 who conducted the referendum has also refuted the allegations levelled by the petitioner. He, however, in compliance with the Court order has brought the referendum result in sealed envelopes, duly signed by the Polling Officer as well as Polling Agents of petitioner and respondent No,2. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner was offered to place on record any document in his possession to substantiate his aforesaid contention of manipulation/alteration of results, to which he frankly conceded that he does not possess any such documents.
5. Moreover, the allegations of rigging, alteration/manipulation of result requires thorough probe, which exercise cannot be undertaken in Constitutional Jurisdiction. In Mazdoor Union v. Registrar of Trade Unions 1997 CLC 311, a Division Bench of this Court has observed that:--- "Another plea before the learned Single Judge pertained to the alleged rigging. That plea was rejected on the ground that an inquiry into such questions of fact could not be undertaken in Constitutional jurisdiction. In fact, even that objection was precluded, although on the same ground as the first recapitulated above. The allegations of rigging, such as they may have been, to have been raised at the level of the departmental functionaries and an inquiry ought to have been solicited. It was only against an outcome of such an exercise or refusal to process it that the relevant grievance could be brought to the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan. There, it could be seen whether or not the Functionaries of the State had acted lawfully in the matter and only if such officers had acted illegally or otherwise than in due course of law that the necessary directive could issue, normally the corrective measure being confined to a proper, further or additional inquiry, leading to appropriate and lawful results rather than holding of the enquiry in the High Court itself."
6. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is unsustainable and is dismissed as such along with listed applications.
7. ' The record of referendum results brought in Court in sealed envelopes be returned to the respondent No, 1.