1. ' MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ADIL KHATRI, J.---According to the petitioner it is a Trade Union registered with the Registrar, Industrywise Trade Unions, National Industrial Relations Commission. It consists of workmen employed in the Sui Gas Transmission Company throughout the country.
2. ' The above company, Karachi Gas Company Limited and Indus Gas Company Limited were merged into one company which has come to be named as Sui Southern Gas Company Limited under the judgment of this Court passed in J. Misc. 40/88 under section 287 of Companies Ordinance, 1984. In the set up of the aforesaid three merged companies the Sui Gas Transmission Company is named as Unit-C. The petitioner-union is the Collective Bargaining Agent of the said unit and its such position was undertaken to be maintained by the Sui Southern Gas Company Limited which fact is incorporated in the 'Aforesaid judgment.
3. ' The application was filed under section 22-EE of the industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for determination of Collective. Bargaining Unit for Unit-C which is pending before the Member, N.I.R.C.
4. At Karachi, the other proceedings pertaining to determination of Collective Bargaining Agent are also pending wherein orders have been passed for holding referendum. The petitioner applied for staying the referendum which application was dismissed and the petitioner has filed Constitutional, Petition No, D-1024/90 before this Court challenging the aforesaid order. This Court granted stay by order dated 10710-1990 against the respondent from proceeding under section 22 of I.R.O. For the determination of Collective Bargaining Agent for the entire establishment of Sui Southern Gas Company Limited.
5. ' In the meanwhile on 13-10-1990 the respondent came to Karachi for the purpose of taking steps for holding referendum at N.I.R.C. Karachi. The record for the said purposes were brought to the respondent pertaining to the employees working in the Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd. Who were supposed to participate in the referendum. The stay granted by this Court was brought to the notice of the respondent on 28-10-1990 by the petitioner and such act on the part of the petitioner annoyed the respondent and as a result thereof, the petitioner received a show-cause notice from the office of the respondent under the signature of Deputy Registrar, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the registration of petitioner be not cancelled as the election of the Unions were not held in accordance with the constitution of the Union and the office-bearers of the Unions continued to hold their office even after expiry of the maximum period of two years. The petitioner sent his reply on 4-11-1990 within the time specified in the show-cause notice with the explanation that its application under section 22-EE was pending before the N.I.R.C. Karachi and therefore petitioner could not take initiative for holding the elections. The petitioner thereafter received order dated 29-12-1990 whereby the respondent in exercise of its powers under section 10(3) of the I.R.O.
6. Cancelled the registration of the petitioner-union, and struck of the name of Union from the register of the Registered Trade Unions. The petitioner has assailed the said order in this petition.
7. ' The respondent has filed its comments in which it has been stated that all the unions including the petitioner were asked to indicate their desire whether they would participate in the referendum proceedings, as required under section 22(3) of the Ordinance. The other two unions gave their consent to take part in the referendum but the petitioner did not give its consent and on the contrary gave vague reply. With regard to the impugend order it has been stated that the petitioner was given a show-cause notice and in the reply neither any justification or reason was offered for violation of its constitution, nor any undertaking was given for rectification of the commission. The reply therefore was held unsatisfactory and accordingly the registration of the Union was cancelled. It has been further pleaded that the petitioner has alternate remedy available under section 22(d) of the Ordinance by way of appeal before the Full Bench of the N.I.R.C.
8. And therefore the petition is not maintainable.
9. ' We have heard Mr. Shamsuddin Khalid, Advocate for the petitioner. None appeared for the respondent.
10. ' Section 10' of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 relates to the cancellation of registration of trade unions, which reads as under:- "10. Cancellation of registration.---(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
(iii) made in its constitution any provision which is inconsistent with this Ordinance or the rules.
(2) (3)
11. ' 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."
12. The bare reading of the aforesaid provisions unambiguously shows that under subsection (1) of the said section the power of cancellation of registration is vested in the Labour Court and is to be exercised upon a complaint in writing made by the Registrar of Trade Unions. The registration is liable to be cancelled in case the Trade Union has contravened or has been registered in contravention of any of the provisions of the Ordinance or the rules or has contravened any of the provisions of the constitution or has made in its constitution any provision which is inconsistent with the Ordinance or the rules. The language of the show-cause notice dated 14-10-1990 specifically levels an allegation that the union had contravened its constitution as no election of the union had been held in accordance therewith. This notice, therefore, for all intents and purposes is a notice under section 10 (i) (ii). In so far as the order of cancellation of the union is concerned, it specifically states that the respondent has cancelled the registration of the petitioner under section 10(3). Under the said provision the registration of the Union can be cancelled by the Registrar if after holding inquiry he finds that such Union has dissolved itself or has ceased to exist.
13. Therefore, the A stand of the respondent that the petitioner was dissolved after show-cause notice i,e, after hearing the petitioner is devoid of any force.
14. ' There is no power vested in the Registrar of Trade Unions to cancel the registration of the Union on the ground that petitioner had contravened the provisions of its constitution by not holding the election within the prescribed time. The cancellation of a Trade Union on such a ground is to follow only in the manner prescribed by the said section and not otherwise or in derogation of the said provisions. It is the mandatory requirement of law that the Registrar has to move the Labour Court for the cancellation of the Union upon making complaint in writing. In this view of the matter the cancellation of the petitioner-union in the manner it has been done is a nullity in the eyes of law and without jurisdiction.
15. ' In case the cancellation is to be considered as having been affected in exercise of powers under subsection (3) of the said section, there is no escape from the fact that the said order does not meet even the minimum requirement of the said subsection and therefore cannot be sustained.
16. The respondent could have exercised such powers only after holding such enquiry as he deemed fit. But in the instant case no inquiry of whatever nature was embarked upon by the respondent.
17. Petitioner, in fact was not even heard to project before the respondent that it has not dissolved itself or that it had not ceased to exist, and for such reason we hold I that the impugned order dated 29-12-1990 is without jurisdiction.
18. ' The respondent in the comments has taken up the plea that an alternate remedy by way of appeal is available and as such the petition is not maintainable. We do not find any reason to agree with the aforesaid proposition. The petitioner has been condemned unheard and no inquiry as envisaged has been conducted and thus the impugned order has been passed in contravention of the said law and the fundamental principles of the natural justice namely audi alteram partem.
19. ' An order held void in law by virtue of violation of principles of natural justice, is void as the one held void as an act done coram non judice without jurisdiction or mala fide. It was held in the case of Shah Mardan Shah and 3 others v. Chief Land Commissioner Sindh and others (PLD 1974 Kar.
20. 375) that a void order is no order in law, its weight is zero in law, it does not exist, and need not be set aside, because law does not recognize its existence.
21. ' In the case, of Murree Brewery Co. Ltd. v. Pakistan and others reported in PLD 1972 SC 279 it has been laid down that the rule that the High Court will not entertain writ petition when other appropriate remedy is yet available is not a rule of law barring jurisdiction but a rule by which the Court regulates its jurisdiction and one of the well-recognised exceptions to the general rule is a case where an order is attacked on the ground that it was wholly without jurisdiction as is the order impugned in this petition.
22. ' The impugned order dated 29-12-1990 is hereby declared as void and of no effect.
23. ' It will, however, be open to the respondent to take action against the petitioner afresh, if there be any justification, in accordance with law and in the manner prescribed.
24. ' The petition is allowed as above, with no order as to cost.