This petition under Article 9 of P. C. O., 1981 has been moved in the following circumstances
1. The petitioner and the respondent No. 2 are registered trade unions in the establishment of Rice Export Corporation of Pakistan.
According to the petitioner, it applied on 25-4-1982 for determination of collective bargaining agent under section 22 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as I.R.O., 1969). Notices dated 26-5-1982 were thereupon issued by the Registrar to the employers and the registered trade unions (including respondent No. 2) in the above--mentioned establishment to attend a meeting on 2-6-1982 for completing the requisite formalities for holding the referendum.
2. The petitioner alleges that subsequently on inquiry, having come to know that the respondent No. 2 union is neither a legally constituted body nor functioning as required by law and its office- bearers have become functus officio, filed objections to the above effect before the Registrar.
3. It appears that the petitioner having failed in its attempt t persuade the Registrar to exclude the respondent No. 2 from the proceeding for finalising arrangements for holding the referendum to determine the collective bargaining agent, submitted the present petition invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court for issuance of an order which A the learned counsel described in the nature of mandamus, directing the Registrar to file a complaint in the Labour Court against the respondent No. 2 under section 10 of 1. R. O., 1969 for cancellation of its registration.
The learned counsel submitted that under section 13 of I.R.O., 1969 the Registrar has powers inter alia to lodge a complaint with the Labour Court for action including prosecution, against trade unions, employers, workers or other persons for any alleged offence or any unfair labour practice for violation of any provision of the I.R.O., 1969 or for expend--ing the funds of a trade union in contravention of the provisions of its constitution. It was then argued that on a complaint thus lodged by the Registrar, it would be open to the Labour Court after inquiry to direct the cancellation of the registration of the respondent No. 2 as it was a clear case where the said trade union (the respondent No. 2) has been acting in contravention of the provisions of the I.R.O., 1969 and also of its consti--tution. Continuing his arguments the learned counsel submitted that one Safdar Hussain a member of the respondent No. 2 in April, 1982 had filed a complaint under section 56 of the I.R.O., 1969 against its President and also the General Secretary for their alleged failure to hold annual general meeting and avoiding rendering of accounts. It was stated that the said complaint has been registered and is pending adjudication.
On the premises stated above, the learned counsel submitted that the Registrar be directed to file a complaint under sections 10 of I R.O., 1969 in the Labour Court for cancellation of the registration of respondent No. 2.
4. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel and find that no case for issuance of any order or direction in the nature of mandamus under Article 9 of P. C. O., 1981 has been made out.
Under section 13 of I.R O., 1969 the Registrar is empowered --lodge a complaint under section 10 before the Labour Court for cancellation of registration of a trade union in certain. Specified circumstances. The powers thus conferred upon him are enabling or permissive which however creates neither any legal right in the petitioner nor impose any obligation upon the Registrar to file at the instance of the petition a complaint for cancellation of the registration of the other union in a case like the present.
Reference be here made to the case of District Magistrate, Lahore v Raza Kazim (PLD 1961S C 178) where while dealing with the principle governing issuance of orders in the nature of writ of mandamus the honourable Supreme Court observed : - "The foundation for an application for a writ of mandamus (whic alone is applicable in the present case as the function of the licensing authority is purely administrative) is that there must exist a legal right in the person seeking the writ or to insist upon a clear duty being performed by some public officer or authority in- respect of that right.
5. There is also reason to believe that the petition has been move for ulterior reason by the petitioner to get itself elected as the collective bargaining agent by- preventing the respondent No. 2 from participating in the proposed referendum. No reliance can be placed on complaint of Safda Hussain, which is still pending for adjudication. The discretionary constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court in the circumstances cannot be invoked.
6. The upshot of the discussion as above is that there is no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed in limine.