1. ' SYED HYDER ALI PIRZADA, J.--The petitioner through this petition has claimed the following reliefs:- "(1) To declare the impugned order dated 5-4-1989 (Annexure-B) passed by respondent No, 1, registering respondent No, 2 Union and issuing Registration Certificate as of no legal effect and without lawful authority.
(ii) To declare the registration certificate issued by respondent No, 1 in favour of respondent No, 2 as illegal, void ab initio, without lawful authority, has been issued in disobedience of directions of this Hon'ble Court given in judgment dated 22-1-1989 and to cancel the same.
(iii) To restrain respondent No, 1 from any further proceedings under section 22 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
(iv) Cost of petition.
(v) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem suitable in the interest of justice.
2. ' The facts leading to the filing of the above petition are that the petitioner is elected President of Pakistan Warehouse Workers Union which is Collective Bargaining Agent of Handling Contractors registered with the Rice Export Corporation of Pakistan. There are six registered trade unions. The case of the petitioner as set out in the petition is that the first respondent illegally, arbitrarily and without lawful authority registered second respondent in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) and issued Registration Certificate No, 5826, dated 30-8-1988.
3. ' The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner filed. Constitution Petition No, S-58/88 in this Court which was allowed by me and remanded the case to the first respondent for disposal according to law with direction to the first respondent to hold enquiry. It is the further case of the petitioner that the first respondent did not hold any enquiry and did not comply with the judgment passed by me.
4. ' The first respondent filed the comments wherein he contended that he held the enquiry in accordance with law.
5. ' Mr. Suleman Habibullah, learned counsel for the petitioner raised the following contentions:-
(1) The first respondent issued certificate in violation of section 7(1)(d) of the Ordinance.
(2) The second respondent does not have as its members 1/5th of the total number of the strength of workmen.
6. On the other hand Messrs M.L. Shahani and S.S. Hamid submitted that all the requirements of the Ordinance have been complied with in respect of registration of the second respondent. Mr. A.G.
7. Mangi submitted that the first respondent held inquiry and complied with all the requirements of the Ordinance.
8. ' I do not find any force in the above contentions. These contentions have been considered by me in the case reported in 1990 PLC 351 in which I have come to the conclusion, after giving cogent reasons, which are fully supported by the various authorities discussed by me in the said decision, that the certificate is conclusive evidence of the fact that the said trade union has been duly registered under the Ordinance. The fact whether the membership of second respondent on the date of registration was less than the minimum number of the members required by clause (b) of subsection (2) of section 7 of the Ordinance is a question of fact which must be adjudicated upon by the Labour Court after due notice to the parties and/or examining or recording the necessary evidence. I am of the humble opinion that this contention would not be proper subject-matter of proceedings under Article 199 of the Constitution. As I am in full agreement with the reasons given in the said judgment, I do not propose to re-write the same here and adopt it for the purpose of supporting the view taken by me in the judgment reported in 1990 PLC 351.
9. ' For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is without merit and the same is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.