' MUKHTAR AHMED JUNEJO, J.---Petitioner Muhammad Younus Siddiqui has invoked Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court against an order dated 5-9-1991 passed by the respondent No, 1 in Appeal No, 12(73)/91.
' According to the petition, respondent No, 3 Sui Southern Gas Workers Union was registered with the Registrar, N.I.R.C. (respondent No, 5) under Registration No, 19/85 as a trade union for the workers of respondent No,
2. On 4-2-1990 respondent No, 3 union applied to the respondent No, 5 for being certified under clause (e) of subsection (9) of section 22 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (hereafter mentioned as I.R.0.) as Collective Bargaining Agent (hereafter mentioned as CBA) for the establishment of the respondent No,
2. Such application of the respondent No, 3 was entertained in Case No,2(10)/90. Since there were more than one registered trade unions in the establishment of respondent No, 2, the respondent No,5 was required to hold a secret ballot (referendum) in pursuance of the provisions contained in subsection (2) of section 22 of I.R.O. For determining as to which one of the trade unions, of the establishment of respondent No, 2 shall be certified as CBA. However, on 9-1-1991 the respondent No, 5 cancelled registration of respondent No, 3 Union. On 154-1990 respondent No, 4 Union with similar name as that of respondent No, 3, was registered by respondent No, 5 as a union for the establishment of respondent No, 2, with registration No, 1/1991. On 11-5-1991 the respondent No, 5 ordered holding of the referendum on 22- 5-1991 for determining, as to, which one of the trade unions shall be C.B.A. For the establishment of respondent No, 2.
' In the meantime Sui Gas Employees' Union filed Constitituional Petition No, D-575 of 1991 in this Court against respondents Nos, 2, 4, 6 and some others, challenging holding of referendum by the respondent on 22-5-1991. A learned D.B. Of this Court under an order dated 20-5-1991 declined to stay holding of the referendum on scheduled date and announcement of its result, but ordered that result of the referendum will not be implemented till further orders. Consequently the referendum was held on 22-5-1991 and its result was announced on 23-5-1991 in favour of the respondent No,
4. The Division Bench seized of the matter in C.P. No,D575/91 under an order dated 2-6-1991 permitted the respondent No, 4 to act as CBA. This enabled the respondent No, 5 to pass an order dated 5-6-1991 certifying the respondent No, 4 as C.B.A. For the establishment of respondent No,
2. Aforesaid order dated 5-6-1991 was assailed by none other than the petitioner, in his Appeal No, 12(73)/91 preferred before the respondent No,
1. Under the impugned order dated 5- 9-1991 the Full Bench of the N.I.R.C. (respondent No, 1) after hearing the petitioner, dismissed his appeal on the ground that he as an individual had no locus standi to challenge order of the respondent No, 5 certifying respondent No, 4 Union as C.BA. Which certificate had not been objected to, by any affected trade union. Hence this petition.
Petitioner Muhammad Younus. Siddiqui who argued his petition in person contended that the respondent No, 4 had never applied to the. Respondent No, 5 for being certified as C.BA. For establishment of the respondent No, 2 and as such the respondent No, 4 could not have been so certified. It was next argued that the referendum held on 22-5-1991 was illegal because registration of respondent No, 3 was cancelled during referendum proceedings. Petitioner claimed that he had locus standi to file appeal against the order dated 5-6-1991 passed by the respondent No, 5 because of use of the words "Any person aggrieved by" in section 22-D of the I.R.O.
Contentions raised by the petitioner are not convincing or appealing. Cancellation of registration of respondent No, 3 on 9-1-1991 was not challenged either by respondent No, 3 or by any of its office- bearers. The petitioner is nobody to challenge such cancellation and he has not shown if he was holding any position in said union. Similarly the order dated 15-1-1991 by which the respondent No, 4 was registered as a Trade Union, was not challenged by any body including the petitioner. No doubt, respondent No, 4 after being allotted registration No, 1/91 had not moved a fresh application for being certified as C.B.A. For the establishment of the respondent No, 2, but the respondent No, 5 while granting new registration to the respondent No, 4 had observed that the registration had been granted in continuity of previous registration, as desired by the respondent No,
4. This was mentioned in the minutes of the joint meeting dated 11-5-1991.
' The petitioner has not claimed anywhere, if he was an office-bearer of the respondent No,3 or if respondent No,3 had authorised him to challenge cancellation of its registration or call in question the referendum dated 22-5-1991 and consequential order dated 5-6-1991 certifying respondent No, 4 to be C.BA., looking from any angle, the petitioner does not appear to be having any locus standi to seek the relief sought in the present Constitution petition.
' For the foregoing reasons, the instant Constitution petition was dismissed in limine under a short order dated 16-1-1992 and these are reasons for the same. Miscellaneous Nos, 119/92 and 120/92 had become infructuous and were disposed of accordingly under the same order dated 16-1-1992.