' JUSTICE (R) RAJA FAYYAZ AHMED (CHAIRMAN).---Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The impugned order including the written reply filed on behalf of respondent No,2 with accompaniments have been perused with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. This appeal under section 12 of IRA, 2012 (Act X of 2102) has been filed by the appellant union namely Pakistan WAPDA Hydro Electric Central Labour Union through its Central General Secretary whereby vide order dated 16-1-2013 passed by the learned Registrar of Trade Unions (RTU) in Case No,3(59) of 2012, the application filed by the respondent No,2 union namely All Pakistan WAPDA Hydro Electric Workers Union by its President under section 6 of IRA, 2012 has been accepted and in consequence the respondent No,2 union (applicant) was directed to be registered with the Commission as industrywise trade union and the registration certificate be issued accordingly.
3. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the respondent No,1/RTU vide order dated 6- 6-2012 cancelled the registration of the trade union namely Pakistan WAPDA Hydero Electric Central Labour Union against which order, the aforesaid union through General Secretary (Khurshid Ahmed) instituted Writ Petition No,182 of 2012 before the Hon'ble Islamabad High Court, Islamabad and vide order dated 14-6-2012, the order of the learned RTU impugned in the writ petition was suspended and the interim order remained operative till 18-12-2012 when the writ petition was dismissed mainly on the ground that alternate remedy was available to the petitioner against the order impugned in the writ petition and in the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court some observations were also made with regard to the merits of the case. This order was challenged by the writ petitioner before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in C.P. No,7 of 2013 which was disposed of by a consent order dated 28-1-2013 whereby the petitioner union was held to be at liberty to avail remedy under section 12 of the IRA, 2012 before the proper forum. The order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reads as under:- "After hearing the learned ASCs for the parties at some length, with their consent, this civil petition for leave to appeal is disposed of in the following terms:---
(i) That the petitioner are at liberty to avail the remedy as provided under section 12 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 before the proper forum.
(ii) Since by impugned judgment of the High Court, the petitioners have been non-suited on the ground of non-availing of alternate remedy under section 12 (ibid), therefore, any discussion as regards the merits of the case against the petitioner, will not come in their way, while availing such remedy before the proper forum, as provided under section 12 (ibid).
(iii) Since the petitioner have promptly agitated their grievance against the order dated 6-6-2012, by filing Writ Petition No,1829 of 2012, before the Islamabad High Court on 13-6-2012, therefore, we expect that the commission, while examining the question of condonation of delay in availing the remedy of appeal, keeping in view such litigation, will be considerate. Moreso, when for this purpose the petitioner have also an arguable case for availing the benefit of section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908."
4. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended inter alia that the since the registration of the union in the name of the appellant union was cancelled by the RTU therefore, in the same name the appellant union through its General Secretary moved to the RTU by submitting application seeking for the registration of the union which application according to the learned Counsel is still subjudice before the learned RTU and is now fixed for 21-2-2013. Secondly, it has been argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that referendum through secret ballot has been ordered to be held between the registered trade unions of the establishment in which context the appellant union has also applied for to be registered and pursuant to the order passed by the learned RTU for holding of referendum, the Authorized Officer has issued notices to the registered trade unions under section 19(3)(a) and (b) of the IRA, 2012 for determination of CBA for the workmen employed in the establishment of WAPDA/corporatize companies and they have been required to submit upto date list of all members of their unions with complete particulars in respect whereof a joint meeting for holding of referendum has been convened by the Authorized Officer on 14-2-2013.
5. Perusal of order dated 24-1-2013 passed by the learned RTU shows that application under section 19(2) of IRA, 2012 was moved by All Pakistan WAPDA Hydro Electric Workers Union through its President and General Secretary for the holding of referendum for determination of CBA for the establishment of WAPDA/Corporatized Companies and after collecting the necessary data with respect to the registered trade unions, the learned RTU concluded that fresh referendum is due under the law in the said establishment accordingly Mr. Ghulam Nabi Deeshak, Registrar of the Commission has been appointed as Authorized Officer under section 19(12) of IRA, 2012 to conduct the proceeding of the referendum through secret ballot under his supervision for determination of CBA in the above said establishment.
' Further the learned Counsel contends that the objections in the proceeding with regard to the registration of the respondent No,2 union were filed by the appellant but the same were not even considered in the impugned order and since the appellant union legitimately claimed to seek registration which matter is pending adjudication with the same learned RTU, yet very quickly by ignoring the facts on record, the impugned order has been passed which consequently emerged into the holding of referendum and thereby the appellant union though entitled to have been registered after it having complied with all the formalities as envisaged by sections 7 and 8 of the Act Ibid but in order to keep the appellant union away from the contest in the referendum their application was not decided within the statutory period of 7 days provided by section 9 of the Act therefore, in the peculiar circumstances of the case interim relief pending disposal of the appeal as may be deemed appropriate may also be granted.
6. The learned Counsel for the respondent No,2 strenuously opposed the competence and maintainability of the instant appeal on the ground that the appellant union is an un-registered trade union, not a body corporate and thus not entitled to sue or be sued by its name. The learned counsel has referred to the provisions of section 13 of Act Ibid. ' It has been empathically argued that the appellant union, simplicitor is a 'trade union' has no locus standi to question the impugned order by filing appeal under section 12 of Act ibid and to supplement his view point with regard to the maintainability of the appeal, reliance has been placed on the reported judgments:---
(i) in case of Khalid Ikramullah, Director Social Security Institution Lyallpur (Faisalabad) v. Punjab Employees Social Security (non gazetted) Staff Union, Faisalabad (1986 SCM R 618);
(ii) National Radio and Telecommunication Corporation Employee and Workers Union Haripur v.
Labour Appellate Tribunal N.-W.F.P. Peshawar and 3 others (1990 PLC 218);
(iii) Rustam Cycle Factory Mazdoor Union v. Rustam and Sohrab Cycle Factory Labour Union and 3 others (1981 PLC 414); and
(iv) Aero Asia Staff and Workers Union v. Managing Director, Aero Asia International (Pvt.) Ltd.
Karachi and another (2001 PLC 135).
' As regards the stated objection petition filed on behalf of appellant union before RTU, it has been argued by the learned counsel that no such objection petition was filed by the appellant union nor any such objection petition is available on the record of the case and secondly; if it be presumed that an objection petition was filed yet, the objector union being not a 'registered trade union' has no locus standi to contest the application for the registration of the union because the question as regards the registration of a union is always between the union and the RTU in as much as; neither any registered trade union nor an employer has any status to contest the application for registration of a trade union. In support of this, a reported judgment in the case of WAPDA Town Employees Union v. WAPDA Employees Cooperative Housing Society, Gujranwala through Secretary and 2 others (2011 PLC 18) has been referred.
7. Section 13 of Act ibid and the case-law cited on behalf of respondent No,2 by his learned counsel have beeti perused carefully. Section 13(1) of the Act ibid relates to the incorporation of registered trade unions and as per its mandate every registered trade union shall be a body corporate by the name under which it is registered, shall have perpetual procession and a common seal and the power to contract and to acquire, hold and dispose of property, both movable and immovable, and shall by the said name sue or be sued. Para materia provisions contained in section 14 of the IRO, 1969 (Ordinance No,XXIII of 1969).
' In the case of Khalid lkramullah, Director Social Security Institution Lyallpur (Faisalabad) v. Punjab Employees Social Security (non-gazetted) Staff Union, Faisalabad (1986 SCM R 618) during pendency of writ petition filed by the trade union, its registration was cancelled and the Hon'ble High Court while granting the writ restored the order of the learned Labour Court but failed to take note of this material fact rendering petition infructuous and incompetent. It was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that such a material rendered the writ petition infrunctuous and incompetent and consequently the order of the High Court was set aside and the writ was recalled.
' In the case of National Radio and Telecommunication Employees and Workers Union Haripur v.
Labour Appellant Tribunal (1990 PLC 218), it has been held that the trade union one ceases to be a registered trade union, as a consequence of action under section 10 of IRO, 1969, it can neither remain a body corporate by the name in which it was registered nor can it sue or be sued by the said name and this proof will also be applicable with all its force to an unregistered trade union.
' Yet, in the other cited case-law; in the case of Rustam Cycle Factory Mazdoor Union v. Rustam and Sohrab Cycle Factory Labour Union (1981 PLC 414), it has been held that in view the context of the de-registration of the trade union it hardly has any locus standi to maintain the writ petition.
' In 2001 PLC 135 (Aero Asia Staff and Workers Union v. Managing Director Aero Asia International (Pvt.) Ltd.), the Full bench of the Commission with regard to the maintainability of a petition against unfair labour practice of employer concluded and held that a trade union at the limp of filing application was just a combination of workers as defined in section 2 (XXVI) of IRO, 1969 and was not a registered trade union hence cannot bring the petition and application in its own name, as the same did not have status of body corporate so as to be entitled to sue or be sued and thus maintained the order of the Single Bench of the NIRC which had dismissed the petition as being not maintainable.
8. Having considered the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel on behalf of the parties, admittedly the appellant union has not been registered so far as a trade union and therefore cannot within the purview of section 13 of Act ibid sue or be sued as a body by or in its name and consistent with the view of the Superior Courts referred to above without dilating upon the other preliminary objections and the stated objection petition filed before the learned RTU, I am of the firm view that the instant appeal filed under section 12 of Act ibid against the impugned order whereby the respondent No,2 has been directed to be registered as industrywise trade union being incompetent and not maintainable is dismissed. As a result C.M.A. No,7A(54) of 2013 filed by the intervener having become infructuous, is disposed of accordingly.