ABDUL HAMEED BALOCH, J. Through this Constitutional Petition the petitioner prayed as under: "It is accordingly respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may please to declare that the respondent No.3 is not eligible person or workman to be office bearer/provincial chairman of All Pakistan Hydro Electric Workers Union and notification dated 25.07.2020 issued by the respondent No.3 is illegal, with any other relief and cost of the proceedings throughout in the interest of justice."
2. Brief facts leading to file the instant petition are that the petitioner is duly elected Zonal Chairman of All Pakistan WAPDA Hydro Workers Union Balochistan (C.B.A) Operation Circle, QESCO, Quetta, that the respondent No.3 issued a notification dated 25.07.2020, whereby an election committee was constituted for holding of the elections of different Zonal, Division and Sub- Divisional positions of All Pakistan WAPDA Hydro Workers Union Balochistan CBA; that on 28.07.2020 the said committee announced the schedule of election to be held on 09.08.2020; that the petitioner being aggrieved of the above notification filed a petition/case No.4A(18)/2020-Q under Section 31 of IRA, 2012 before the Member, National Industrial Relation Commission, Quetta Bench, but the same was dismissed vide order dated 6.8.2020, by accepting the application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C., filed by the respondent No.3; that the petitioner also submitted an application in the office of respondent No.4 under Section 6 of the IRA, 2012 but the same was also not considered as the Zonal Divisional-sub-Divisional officer of the provinces are not registered with him, thus, the petitioner having no alternate remedy against the action of the respondents Nos.2 and 3, filed the instant petition with the prayer as mentioned above.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the act of the respondent No.3 is against the law as he is retired officer in B-17 cannot hold the charge of joint president of the workers union nor constitute the election committee consist upon the officers of BPS-17 and BPS-16 by allowing them to contest the election and to cast their votes; that the respondent No.3 has illegally issued Notification No. APHWEWUB/F-8/1009-17, dated 25.07.2020 for constituting an election committee for holding of election followed by directions to hold the election till 20th September, 2020 and also allowed all the officers in BPS-17 and BPS-16 to contest the election and cast their votes.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The perusal of record reveals that the petitioner before filing the instant petition also filed a grievance petition before the Member, National Industrial Relation Commission, Quetta, which was contested by the respondent No.3 by filing an application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. The learned Member NIRC vide order dated 06th August, 2020 returned the grievance petition to the petitioner with observation that the Bench of Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere in the internal affairs of the union. Under Section 58 of the Industrial Relation Act, 2012 a remedy of appeal has been provided to a person aggrieved by an award or decision passed by the Bench of Commission. It would be appropriate to reproduce Section 58 of Act, 2012 as under:
58. Appeals.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, 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, 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 (I) shall be disposed of by the Full Bench of Commission which shall--
(a) if the appeal is from an order determining and certifying a collective bargaining unit, have the power to confirm, set aside, vary or modify such an order.
(b) if the appeal relates to any other matter, the Full Bench may, confirm, set aside, vary or modify the decision or sentence passed and shall exercise all the powers required for the disposal of an appeal.
(c) The decision of the Full Bench shall be delivered as expeditiously as possible, within a period of sixty days following the filing of the appeal, provided that such decision shall not be rendered invalid by reasons of any delay in its delivery.
(d) The Full Bench may, on its own motion at any time, call for the record of any case or proceedings under this Act in which a Bench within its jurisdiction has passed an order for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality, or propriety of such order, and may pass such order in relation thereto as it thinks fit: Provided that no order under this subsection shall be passed revising or modifying any order adversely affecting any person without giving such person a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
(3) In an appeal preferred to it against the order of a Bench directing the re-instatement of a workman, the Full Bench may make an order staying the operation of the order of the Bench.
(4) The Full Bench shall decide such appeal within twenty days of its being preferred: Provided that, if such appeal is not decided within the period aforesaid, the stay order of the Full Bench shall stand vacated on the expiration of that period"
5. When the statute provides alternate remedy by way of appeal/revision, the constitutional petition is not maintainable. The learned counsel for the petition has taken a plea that the procedure for availing the alternate remedy under the relevant law is lengthy, therefore, the petitioner deemed it proper to file the instant petition for early disposal of the matter. The plea so taken by the petitioner has no substance. It is noun the choice of the party to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction as an alternate remedy. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Mst. Kaniz Fatima v. Muhammad Salim 2001 SCMR 1493 had held that "where a particular statute provides a self-contained machinery for the determination of questions arising under the Act as and where law provides a remedy by appeal or revision to another Tribunal fully competent to give any relief any indulgence to the contrary by the High Court is bound to produce a sense of distrust in statutory Tribunals. Further in the case of Mir Zaman v. Mst. Sheda 2000 SCMR 1699, the apex Court of the country observed as under: "The plea that the procedure given in the C.P.C. was lengthy, therefore, the petitioner deemed it proper to avail Constitutional remedy for early disposal of the matter, has no substance at all, for it is not at the choice and discretion of the pony to invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction as an alternate remedy when adequate recourse under the law was available. Writ jurisdiction cannot be resorted to when grievance is rectifiable in appellate hierarchy. Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 begins with the words "subject, to the Constitution, a High Court may, if it is satisfied that no other adequate remedy is provided by law.---(a) on the application of any aggrieved party, make an order---" The opening words of the Article make it dear that Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court can only be invoked when no other adequate remedy is provided by law."
6. Since the petitioner has remedy to file the appeal against the impugned order of Member Industrial Commission Quetta under the above referred Act, therefore, the Constitutional Petition is not maintainable.
In view of above, the petition is dismissed in limine.