This writ petition calls in question the order dated 31st March, 1979, passed by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, wherein it was held that the petitioner union has neither been validly registered nor determined as Collective Bargaining Agent (hereinafter called the C. B. A.) and that Mr. Safdar Ali Sahibzada who filed the application for setting aside its earlier order dated the 21st October, 1978, dismissing the appeal of Mr Kaleem Rabani, Manager, National Bank of Pakistan, Main Branch, Maclagan Road, Lahore, against the decision dated the 31st March, 1978 of the Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore ; whereby it was held that certificate of C. B. A. Issued to respondent No. 4 in 1974 continued to be operative and respondent No. 3 had no authority to freeze current account No. 4666 of respondent No: 4, had no locus standi to do so.
2. Respondent No. 4 was registered as a trade union on the 9th February, 1974, for the Lahore District only in respect of establishment of the National Bank of Pakistan. It was also ascertained and determined as C. B. A. With effect from the 11th June, 1974, for Lahore District only, through a referendum as contemplated by subsection (9) of section 22 of the Industrial (Relations .Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) (hereinafter called the Ordinance).
3. The petitioner was originally registered as trade union on the 12th August, 1974, for the whole of the Punjab which included Islamabad but did not extend to Azad Kashmir. That situation continued till the 20th August, 1976, when the National Industrial Relations Commission (hereinafter called the Commission) determined and certified five Collective Bargaining Units (hereinafter called the C. B.
Us.) under section 22-EE of the Ordinance, in the establishment of the National Bank of Pakistan.
These units consisted of Karachi Quetta Lahore Peshawar and Head Office units.
4. The controversy raised in this petition relates to Lahore Unit originally comprising of the following administrative circles/principal offices of the National Bank of Pakistan
(i) Bahawalpur Zone.
(ii) Multan Zone.
(i.e) Sahiwal Zone.
(iv) Lahore Zone 'A'
(v) Lahore Zone ---B'
(vi) Gujranwala Zone.
(vii) Sialkot Zone.
(viii) Lyallpur Zone.
(ix) Sargodha Zone.
(x) Rawalpindi Zone.
(xi) Islamabad Zone.
(xii) Muzaffarabad Zone.
5. Respondent No. 5, according to the petitioner succeeds the National Bank of Pakistan Workers Union, Sheikhupura district, which applied for modification and fresh registration after the C. B. Us.
Came into being. This is controverted by respondent No. 5, whose claim is that it is a new union created after merger of several unions. As per letter No. RTU/PB-79/18241, dated the 26th November, 1976, of the Joint Director (Headquarters) of Registrar, Trade Unions Punjab, Lahore, addressed to respondent No. 5, a copy of which has been placed on record by the respondent-Bank, respondent No. 5 applied for the registration of its trade union on the 8th October, 1976, i. e. After the order of the Commission determining C. B. Us., but their application could not be processed on account of certain discrepancies which were presumably rectified and the next day after issuance of the said letter i. e. 27th November, 1976, respondent No. 5 got registration of its union, representing in Punjab.
6. The operative part of the Commissions order dated 20th August, 976, reads thus :-
(ii) These five C. B. U's. Shall become effective from the date of notifi--cation by the Registrar of the National Industrial Relations Commission, and the Commission's order dated 1st February, staving further proceedings pending before the Commission in respect of the proposed referendum till final decision of the present application under section 22-EE of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, shall stand abrogated as from the said date of notification, and this order shall apply to all other cases in which similar stay order has been given.
(i.e) Wherever necessary, the trade Unions in the establishment of the National Bank of Pakistan shall effect modification in regard to their registration according to above determination of units within 30 days of such notification. The Registrars concerned shall ensure that the number of the executive does not exceed the prescribed limit, by whatever name the officers of the union be called, according to section 2 (x) and (xviii), read with section 6 (a) (i.e) and section 7 (1) (a), of the Industrial Relations Ordinance.
(iv) The C. B. A. For each of these Units shall hereafter be determined according to the provisions of section 22, I. R. O.
(v) The C. B. A., Sheikhupura district, shall cease to exist on expiry of the present term in November, 1976, and determination of C. B. A. For the Lahore Unit shall be made as from that date, unless the former C. B. A. Voluntarily opts to surrender its certificate earlier so as to conform to the schedule proposed in clause (ii) above.
(vi) These changes shall remain effective for a period of five years from the date of the Registrar's notification, and shall continue to remain effective for such period until collective bargaining units have been re-determined by the Commission on application under section 22-EE : Provided that if, at any time before the expiry of said period, the Federal Government is of the opinion that circumstances in wh1ch the decision was made have materially changed or that it is in public interest to review the determination of C. B. Us. It may refer the matter to the Commission for such review, whereupon the Com--mission shall act according to the provisions of section 22- EE.
(vii) Necessary action shall be taken to give effect to the above decision by the Deputy Registrar, National Industrial Relations Commission".
7. The Commission issued notification dated the 17th September, 1976, in consequence of its order dated the 20 August, 1976, specifying therein the five C. B. Us. In the National Bank of Pakistan. The Provin--cial Registrars, Trade Unions, were directed to call upon the registered trade unions operating in the National Bank of Pakistan within their jurisdic--tion to effect modification in regard to their registration according to the above determination of units within thirty days of the notification and take appropriate action as indicated in the aforesaid order of the Commission. The Provincial Registrars were also directed to submit their reports with regard to the action taken by them in the light of the said instructions soon after the expiry of thirty days period froth the date of issue of the notification.
8. The petitioner approached the Commission by letter dated the 14th October, 1976, for registration as industry-were trade union. It was stated in the application that in pursuance of the decision of the Commis--sion dated 20th August, 1976, contained in para. 5 (i.e) thereof, the peti--tioner has amended its Constitution by extending its territorial limits to Azad Kashmir. Article 4 of the Constitution of the petitioner union reads thus :-- "Any employee of National Bank of Pakistan including supervisors and the like (not employer himself) employed within tire territorial limits of collective bargaining Unit vide decision dated 20th August, 1976 notified vide N. I. R. C. Notification dated 17th September, 1976 shall be eligible to become ordinary member of the Union provided he fulfils the conditions :--
(a) Agrees to abide by the Constitution and the Bye-Laws that may be framed and amended by the Union from time to time.
(b) Agrees to pay admission fee of Re. 1 and monthly subscription of Rs. 2 (Rupees two only) in case of subordinate staff fee shall be Ps. 50 and subscription of Re. 1 (Rupee one only).
(c) Applies for ordinary membership on the prescribed forth by the Union
9. The Commission by its letter dated 1st November, 1976 modified the Lahore C. B. U. So as to exclude the areas of Gilgit, Baltistan and Azad Kashmir as the provisions of the Ordinance did not extend to these areas. The applications of the petitioner and others were forwarded to the Registrar, Trade Unions, Punjab, for registration or as the case may be, for modification.
10. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application dated 5th November, 1976 tug the Registrar, Trade Union, Punjab, praying that it be certified as C. B. A. Under section 22(1) of the Ordinance, as no union except the petitioner union is registered in the Lahore C. B. U. As determined by the Commission vide para. 6 of its judgment dated 20th August, 1976. The Registrar granted the certificate provisionally by order dated the 20th November, 1976. The operative part reads thus :-- "It, is hereby provisionally certified subject to the manner to be prescribed under the law that NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN EMPLOYEES UNION, CENTRAL CIRCLE (PUNJAB) (19/74) LAHORE, is a Collective Bargaining Agent in the establishment of NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN, LAHORE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UNIT, within the meaning of subsection (i) of section 22 of the Industrial Relation Ordinance, 1969 (as amended).---
11. The National Bank of Pakistan Workers' Union, Sheikhupura, which is not a party to these proceedings, filed an application under section 34 of the Ordinance, challenging therein the order dated 20th November, 1976 granting provisional certificate of C. B. A. In favour of the petitioner Union. The Labour Court by order dated 30th December, 1976 directed the Registrar to hold referendum on an application of any of the unions for the reason that the certificate of C. B. U. Was given to the petitioner provisionally. It was further held that in case an application for referendum is made then the certificate of C. B. A. Should be suspended by the Registrar of his own fifteen days before the referendum so that the union may not exploit its status as C. B. A. This order was upset by order dated 23rd July, 1977 passed in writ petition No. 24 of 1977 by this Court, wherein it was held that once the Registrar or the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner could legally be declared and affirmed, its declaration as a C. B. U. Even though pro--visionally, it could not be made conditional or suspended on an applica--tion for referendum being made. Accordingly, the direction of the Labour Court for suspending the C. B: A. Was declared as without lawful authority- and of no legal effect. Apart from this challenge no challenge was made to the certificate of C. B. A.
To the petitioner Union.
12. In December, 19 76 a dispute arose between the rival groups of respondent No. 4, each group claimed to be the real representative of the workers. A large fund was deposited through check of under section 23 of the Ordinance in the National Bank of Pakistan. As a result of this dispute and change in the units, the respondent-Batik did not allow the withdrawal of funds. In consequence, respondent No. 4 filed an applica--tion before the Punjab Labour Court No. 1. Lahore, under section 23 read with section 34 of the Ordinance, seeking therein a direction that the funds deposited in its name under section 23 of the Ordinance, against account No. 4666 and frozen by the Bank be released. And the Bank be directed not to dishonour any cheque issued by the aforesaid union. The Labour Court vide its decision dated 13th March, 1978 accepted the application allowing respondent No. 4 to operate the disputed account with respondent No. 3. The petitioner Union was not impleaded as a party to this application.
13. Respondent No. 3 challenged the aforesaid order in an appeal preferred under section 37(3) of the Ordinance, which was dismissed on 21st October, 1978. Thereafter, respondent No. 4 published a leaflet on 23rd October, 1978 containing extracts of the order dated 21st October. 1978 passed by respondent No. 1. The petitioner-Union submitted an application on the 15th November, 1978 before respondent No. 1 for setting aside its order dated 21st October, 1979 being ex pane. A similar application was also made to the Labour Court on 18th November, 1978. The application before the Labour Court was not pursued. The application before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal was dismissed by order dated 31st March, 1979 on the ground that the petitioner-Union was neither a validly registered union nor a C. B. A. And Safdar Ali Sahibzada had no locus standi to file the application. It was held that the petitioner. Union was not validly. Registered under section 7 of the Ordinance, inasmuch as, they violated their own constitution by not holding the election within the specified time. It was further held that the C. B. A. Certificate issued to the petitioner being provisional and not on the prescribed form "S" was invalid and the Labour Court or the Appellate Tribunal was competent to decide the question of validity of the petitioner's registration and certification as C. B. A.
14. Before proceeding with the merits of the case, I would like to dispose of the preliminary objection raised on behalf of respondents No. 3 and 5 that the writ petition has become infructuous. The submission is that the membership of the petitioner-Union extended to Islamabad which originally constituted part of the Lahore C. B. U. Vide Commission's order dated 20th August, 1976. Islamabad being Federal Area falls beyond the territorial jurisdiction of Registrar of Trade Unions. Punjab, was delinated vide notification No. 3-347 (Lab-II) 65-2, dated 9th June, 1981. In consequence, the petitioner surrendered its previous registration and fresh registration have been done now by the Commission vide its letter No. 3(6)/83, dated 14th March, 1983 and, -therefore, the provisional C. B.
A. Certificate issued to the petitioner in consequence of its registration by the Registrar, Trade Unions, Punjab, automatically lapsed.
15: The objection is misconceived. The petitioner-Union has merely been directed to surrender to the Commission the certificate issued by the Registrar, Trade Unions, Punjab. There is nothing on record to sub--stantiate the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that any fresh registration of the petitioner-Union has been made by the Com--mission. On the contrary, in view of the suspension of the order impugned in this writ petition, the Commission by letter dated 17th February, 1983 has allowed the petitioner-Union to continue to function as C. B. A. Till new C. B. A. Is determined for holding referendum between this union and the. National Bank of Pakistan Workers Union i.e. Respondent No. 5. The preliminary objection is, therefore, over--ruled.
16. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the C. B. A. Certificate was validly issued to the petitioner as it was the only registered trade union and phrase "provisional" added to it was redundant and even if C. B. A. Certificate suffered from any legal defect, the Labour Appellate Tribunal in the exercise of its suo motu powers was not com--petent to cancel it.
17. Learned counsel for the respondents took up the plea that the Tribunal passed the impugned order on the application of the petitioner-- Union, therefore, it would be wrong to say that the Tribunal cancelled the registration in the exercise of its suo motu power, Reliance was placed on Sher Muhammad and another v. Munir Ahmad end trio others (1978 SC MR167to contend that a person himself invoking jurisdiction of a particular Tribunal could not, on order, being passed by such Tribunal, challenge such order as being without jurisdiction. Without prejudice to this contention, it was further argued that the Labour Court and the Tribunal are equipped with all the powers under the Code of Civil. Procedure as envisaged by section 36 of the Ordinance. These are not Courts of limited jurisdiction, but in addition to their special jurisdiction have all the powers under the Code. It was submitted that a special jurisdiction is, therefore, additional to and not in exclusion of the powers under the Code of Civil Procedure and, therefore, the Tribunal was competent to examine the validity or otherwise of the certificate of registration, as well as, the determination of the C. B. A. It was further argued that the registration of the petitioner's union under section 9 of the Ordinance was not a conclusive proof of its validity and if a certificate is illegally granted, it can always be challenged. Reliance was placed on Muhammad Idrish v. East Pakistan Timber Merchants Groups and another (PLD 1968 SC 412in which the scope of section 24 of the Companies Act, 1913, the provisions of which are somewhat in pari materia with section 9 of the Ordinance, was determined, v. Wherein it was held :- "The reference to section 24 is, in our opinion, inapt, for it only provides that a certificate of incorporation of a company is conclusive evidence of the fact that all the requirements of the Companies Act in respect only of the registration and of matter precedent and incidental thereto have been complied with and that the association is a Company authorised to be registered under the Act. This has no bearing on this question of discretion. It is manifest that if a certificate of incorporation is illegally granted it can always be challenged by an appropriate proceedings."
18. It was next contended that as per letter dated 1st November, 1976 the Commission had modified the C. B. Us. Determined as per its earlier order dated 20th June, 1976. The result was that the Lahore C. B. U. Was modified so as .To exclude the areas of Gilgit, Baltistan and Azad Kashmir and therefore, unless and until the constitution of the petitioner-Union was modified accordingly, the Registrar, Trade Unions, Punjab was not competent to grant even a provisional certificate of C.
13. A.
It was submitted that since the petitioner-Union did not amend its constitution in terms of the said letter, the grant of provisional certificate of C. B. A. Was ultra vires of the orders passed by the Commission under section 22-EE of the Ordinance. Learned counsel for the res--pondents argued that upon determination of a C. B. U. Under section 22-EE, the Commission became repository of all powers under the Ordinance, as well as, such powers which may even be contrary to the Ordinance. Thus the powers of the Commission are alone to prevail under section 22-EE and the Registrar Trade Unions cannot go beyond it. It was next contended that in terms of section 22-E of the Ordinance, the order of the Commission is final and cannot be called in question in any manner whatsoever before any Court or other authority.
19. It is not necessary to examine all the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, as the writ petition can be disposed of on short legal grounds.
20. Section 9 of the Ordinance provides that the Registrar, on registering a trade union under section 8, shall issue a certificate of registration in the prescribed form which shall be conclusive evidence that the trade union has been duly registered under this Ordinance. The term "prescribed" has been defined in section 2 (xix) of -the Ordinance, which means prescribed by rules. The term "rule" as per section 2 (xxviii) means rules framed under section 66 ibid. The Punjab Industrial Relation Rules, 1973, were enforced with effect from 22nd January, 1974. Rule 3 reads thus :- "On receipt of the result from the Polling Officer, the Registrar or his authorised agent shall declare the trade union which has received the highest number of votes to be the Collective Bargaining Agent in accordance with clause (e) of subsection (9) of section 22 and issue a certificate to this effect in Form 'S".
It would be seen that rule 38 limits to declaration of C. B. A. Under section 22(9) of the Ordinance as a consequence of referendum. No form was prescribed for the declaration of the C. B. A. Under section 22(1) ibid. Rule 38 was substituted on 5th November, 1979 which reads thus :--- " (1) On receipt of an application from a Registered Trade Union under section 22(1) the Registrar or an Officer of the Government authorised in writing by him shall call upon the employer to submit a list of workmen employed in the establishment excluding those having less than three months service showing in respect of each workman, parentage, age, section or Department, job, ticket number and date of employment in the establishment. After satisfying himself about the 1/3 membership of the applicant-Union the Registrar shall issue a certificate in Form 'S'.
(2) On receipt of the result from the Polling Officer the Registrar shall certify the Trade Union which has received the highest number of votes to be the Collective Bargaining Agent in accordance with clause (e) of subsection (a) of section 22 and issue a certificate to this effect in Form "S-A":
(3) The certificate under subsection (9) of section 22 shall be in Form 'S-B".
21. When the certificate of C. B. A. Was issued to the petitioner n particular form was prescribed but the certificate of C. B. A. Could not be avoided or delayed in fulfilment merely because no particular mod has been prescribed and the same could also not be held invalid merely because it was issued not in a properly prescribed form which' was not in existence when it was issued. It is, therefore, difficult to hold that the C. B. A. Certificate issued to, the petitioner was invalid merely because it was not issued in the form which has been prescribed for the first time in 1979.
22. Section. 10 of the Ordinance provides :--
(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 ; or
(ii) contravened any of the provisions of its constitution ; or (i.e) made in its constitution any provision which is inconsistent with this Ordinance or the rules:
(2) Where any person who is disqualified under section 7-A from being elected as, or from being, an officer of a trade union is elected as an officer of a registered trade union, the registration of that union shall be cancelled if the Labour Court, upon a complaint in writing made in this behalf by the Registrar, so directs.
(3) The registration of a trade union shall be cancelled by the Registrar if, after holding such inquiry as he deems fit, he finds that such trade union has dissolved itself or has ceased to exist."
A bare perusal of section 10 would show that lodging of a complaint in writing by the Registrar to the Labour Court is a condition preceding for vesting jurisdiction in the latter to cancel the registration of a -trade) union. In terms of clause (a) of section 11 of the -Ordinance, any trade union aggrieved by a decision of the Labour Court under subsection (1) or subsection (2) of section 10 may appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal neither enjoys any original jurisdiction nor has any power to take cogni--zance of such a matter suo motu. The Tribunal as appellate authority can take cognizance of the matter only when an appeal is brought before it be an aggrieved trade union against the decision by a Labour Court. Muhammad Idrish's case cited by the learned counsel for the respondents does not support their plea; inasmuch as, it was held in the precedent case that if a certificate of incorporation is illegally granted it can always be challenged by "appropriate proceedings." (The 'underlining is mine). I would, therefore, be seen that the legality or otherwise of a certificate b registration of trade union and determination of C. B. A. Can only challenged by "appropriate proceedings" i. e. By resorting to the provisions of 'section 10 of the Ordinance. It is well-settled that where a statute creates a right and also provides a machinery for the enforcement of that right, the party complaining breach of the statute has to resort to the mod prescribed in the statute and that performance cannot be enforced in another way. Thus visualized, the petitioner's certificate of registration of trade union and certification of C. B. A. Was not open to challenge on the ground that its constitution was not modified in pursuance of the order of the Commission or for any other legal defect; in the collateral proceed--ings before the Tribunal. The Labour Appellate Tribunal is a functionary exercising judicial powers conferred and defined under the Ordinance. It can only determine rights and liabilities of the parties in the manner laid down therein. It cannot suo motu adjudicate upon matters beyond it jurisdiction merely because a party has approached it: Refer Riaz Hussain Shah and 23 others v. Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore and 7 others (PLD 1977 Lah. 316) wherein it was held:- "As regards the objection to the constitution being repugnant to certain rules, the only authority sat has to take note of it, is the Registrar who can lodge a complaint to the Labour Court under section
10. There is no provision for the Labour Court to take up the issue suo motu. There is also nothing in the law or the rules empowering the Labour Court to direct the Registrar to lodge a complaint before it. On the other hand, the Labour Court, in a valid appeal before it can either direct the Registrar to register the change or alteration in the constitution or in the officers or for reasons to be recorded in writing direct the Registrar to hold fresh elections under his supervision. In a complaint under section 10 the Labour Court can direct the Registrar to cancel the registration but has no power to direct the Registrar to hold a meeting of the general body for the purpose of amending the constitution to bring it in accord with the rules or the provisions of law. It will, therefore, be left to the workers as to whether they would form another Union or join the existing ones, if any. The impugned order of the Labour Court was without jurisdiction."
22. In Syed Mushtaque Hussain Shah v. Riaz Muhammad Hazarvi and another (PLD 1978 Kar. 612) it was held :- "In my humble view, the right to registration by a trade union having been conferred by the I. R. O., has also the liability to cancellation of registration under certain circumstances, and the statute having provided the authorities by which and the mode in which the registration was to be granted or cancelled, the right or the liability cannot be enforced in any other manner or through any other forms."
Reference be made to National Bank of Pakistan Peoples Federation v. National Industrial Relations Commission (P L 6 1975 Kar. 320) wherein it was held :- "A certificate of registration is a very valuable right to a trade union and the detailed provisions of section 10 for the cancellation of such a certificate manifest the Legislature's intention to protect the right of trade unions. Therefore, in my humble opinion, the certificate can only be cancelled in the manner prescribed in section 10."
"The Commission's claim to institute a prosecution, suo motu, cannot be supported by the aforesaid clause, because such a power to prosecute is not to be inferred lightly. But just as the power to prosecute cannot be inferred lightly the power to cancel a trade union certificate cannot be inferred lightly, because such a certificate is a very valuable right and there is a presumption in favour of vested rights. Accordingly, by party of reasoning, the judgment lends some support to Mr. Khalid Ishaque's submission and in all the circumstances discussed, I accept his submission and the peti--tioner's certificate of registration can only be cancelled under section 10. But even the learned Deputy Attorney General admitted that the impugned order had not been passed under this section, therefore, I hold that it was without jurisdiction."
Similar view was also taken in Abdul Jamil v. Registrar of Trade Unions West Pakistan, Lahore and another (P L D1971 Lah. 220) wherein it was held :- "The scheme of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, is to set up a particular machinery by the use of which alone the formation of Trade Unions, the regulation of relations between employers and workmen and the avoidance and settlement of any differences of disputes arising between them or matters connected therewith and ancillary thereto can effectively be had. The Ordinance prescribes both the remedy and the manner in which it may be enforced. In our view the only remedy open to the petitioner against the order of the Registrar whereby he registered the respondent-Union whether by means of an application under section 10 to the Registrar for cancellation of registration or an appeal to the Labour Appellate Tribunal under section 11, are to be found within the four corners of the Ordinance."
Sher Muhammad's case does not help the respondents. In the instant case, the petitioner did not invoke the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for determining the validity or otherwise of the certificates of registration and C. B. A. Issued in its favour. On the contrary an objection was taken before the Tribunal that it lacked jurisdiction to examine this question in view of the provisions of section 10 of the Ordinance. The Tribunal dealt with this matter at length and repelled the contention of the petitioner Union. The petitioner-Union is, therefore, not estopped by its conduct to challenge the impugned order of the Tribunal merely because an applica--tion was made on its behalf for setting aside the ex parte order of the Labour Court, as well as, the Tribunal in which the petitioner was not impleaded as a party. Respectfully following the ratio laid down in the precedents discussed in the preceding paragraphs, I hold that the certifi--cate of registration of the petitioner- Union and its determination as C. B. A was not open to challenge before the Tribunal. The Labour Court or the Appellate Tribunal have no jurisdiction to determine as to whether a trade union is or is not a C. B. A. This matter falls within the exclusive jurisdic--tion of the Registrar or the Commission as the case may be. The impugn--ed order, therefore, ex facie suffers from jurisdictional defect and on this score alone, is liable to be struck down.
23. Let me now turn to examine the contention of Mr. Aitzaz Hassan that the Labour Court, in addition to its special jurisdiction have all the powers under the Code of Civil Procedure and was, therefore, competent to disregard the certificate of registration on the ground that it was issued by an Authority which has no jurisdiction in the matter and was repugnant to the relevant provisions of the Ordinance. The argument on this point revolves round the interpretation of section 36 of the Ordinance, which reads thus :- "36 (1) Subject to the provisions of this Ordinance, while trying an offence, a Labour Court shall follow as nearly as possible summary procedure as prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.
(2) A Labour Court shall, for the purpose of adjudicating and deter--mining any industrial dispute, be deemed to be a Civil Court and shall have the same power as are vested in such Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act V of 1908) including the powers of;
(a) enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath,
(b) compelling the production of documents and material objects, and (c) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents.
(3) A Labour Court shall, for the purposes of trying an offence under this Ordinance or the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 (W. P.
Ordinance VI of 1968) have the same powers as are vested in the Court of a Magistrate of first class specially empowered under section 30 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act V of 1898).
(4) No court-fee shall be payable for filing, exhibiting or recording any document in, or obtaining any document from a Labour Court.
(5) If the parties to a case, at any time before a final order is passed by the Labour Court, satisfy tile Labour Court that the matter has been resolved by them amicably and that there are sufficient grounds for withdrawing the case, it may allow such withdrawal."
24. The scope of section 36 of the Ordinance was exhaustively examined in Brooke Bond (Pakistan)
Ltd. v. Second Sind Labour Court, Karachi and another (I), wherein it was held: "What I am emphasising at the moment is that the words "powers" and "procedure" are not synonymous though of necessity they may overlap. Although the section is headed "Procedure and powers of a Labour Court" it does not, therefore, follow that every power given by a Code, which provides for procedure, is necessarily attracted to a Tribunal whose procedure for a given purpose is defined, by reference to another tribunal to which that Code expresly refers. That section 36 does not really deal with the powers of a Labour Court is made amply clear, I think, by the fact that its main power is conferred by section 35 (5) and not section 36; the reference to powers in section 36 is incidental and closely bound up with procedure. It is in subsections (2) and (3) that section 36 makes more careful provision for procedure and powers in two different jurisdiction a in (2) while adjudicating and determin--ing an industrial dispute and in (3) while trying an offence under the Ordinance. I am, therefore, of the view that subsection (2) does not confer upon a Labour Court, while adjudicating and determining an industrial dispute, all the powers of a civil Court under the Civil Procedure Core but only such of them as may be described as procedural, i.e. Such as are required for the purpose" of adjudication and determination."
"Learned consul for the respondent No. 2, Mr. Ali Amjad, in 'the course of an able address, attempted to dissuade us from this view by pointing out that after the words "Civil Court" appears the words "and shall". In other words the Labour Court was (PLD 1973Kar. 189) for the purpose stated to be deemed a civil Court and (2) was to have powers vested by the Civil Procedure Code in a civil Court: As a matter of pure Stammer, Mr. Ali Amjad is undoubtedly right and, if there had been no outer consideration involved, I should have agreed with him without hesitation. But bad drafting is a feature of this Ordinance; I have already given one example and could give others and this has been noticed, in other judicial pronouncements as well : See for instance the observation of Muhammad Iqbal. J in Abdul Jamil v. Registrar, Trade Unions. Apart from this, however, acceptance of Mr. Ali Amjad's argument would render entirely superfluous all the words in subsection (2) following "civil Court". If the Labour Court is to be deemed a civil Court for all purposes while engaged in the determination and adjudication of industrial disputes, a reference to the Civil Procedure Code would be wholly unnecessary."
I say with respect that it has been rightly held that in terms of sub section (2) of section 36 of the Ordinance, the Labour Court is not invested with all the powers of civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, but only such of them as may be described as procedural i.e. As are require for the purposes of adjudication and determination of an industrial dispute. I follow it. It is, therefore, difficult to sustain the plea of the learned counsel for the respondents that the Tribunal was equipped wit all the powers under the Code of Civil Procedure and was competent examine the vires of certificates of registration and C. B. A. In the Col. Lateral proceedings. Refer The Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore v. Raja Muhammad Fazil Khan and others (PLD 1975 SC 331), wherein it was held: "However, in the matter of collateral impeachment of such an order, the position appears to be different. Whereas, a superior Court or a Court of general jurisdiction has the power to disregard, as a nullity, an order obtained by fraud or collusion or on the ground of want of jurisdiction in the Court or authority making it, such a power is not available to a tribunal which either acts in an admi-- nistrative capacity or enjoys only a special or limited jurisdiction in a defined sphere. As this question has only recently been examined by this Court at some length in Raunaq Ali v. Chief Settlement Commissioner it is not necessary to go over the same ground again, and it would suffice to state that the conclusion reached in that case to the effect that where finality is given to the decision of a certain body which has also the jurisdiction to decide finally, facts upon which its own jurisdiction is founded, that decision cannot be called in question in any other collateral proceeding by another tribunal or body of limited jurisdiction."
25. Respondent No. 4 on the creation of Lahore C. B. U: by the Commission did not get its registration. Neither the petitioner-Union nor respondent No. 3 have any objection if respondent No. 4 continues to operate its current account No. 4666 with respondent No. 3, I also find no legal bar to do so. Respondent No. 4 has, therefore, no grievance to agitate in these proceedings. Respondent No. 5 was not a party to the proceedings either before the Labour Court or the Tribunal. It never challenged in any appropriate proceedings the status .Of the petitioner-Union as a registered union or as a C: B, A., instead it filed an application under section 22 (1) of the Ordinance for holding referendum between itself and the petitioner. The matter is now sub judice before the Commission.
I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the adjudication of the said application in these proceedings.
The upshot of the whole discussion is that the impugned order dated 31st March. 1979 of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal is hereby declared as without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The writ petition is accepted but there shall be no order as to costs.