MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J.--This I.C.A. Has been directed against the order, dated 26-9-1993 passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court dismissing the Writ Petition No.2601 of 1993 filed by Burewala Textile Mills Limited, Burewala against Registrar Trade Unions and three others challenging the order, dated 13-6-1993 whereby appellant was refused by the Registrar to be associated in the proceedings before him in connection with the Registration of respondent No.4 as Trade Union and order, dated 14-6-1993 by which he consequently issued a certificate of Registration to respondent No.4.
2. Briefly, the facts leading to the filing of this I.CA. Are that respondent No.4, a Trade Union moved an application under section 5 of Industrial Relation Ordinance, 1969 to the respondent No.1 Registrar, Trade Union for its registration as Trade Union. Respondent No.1 on receipt of application issued necessary process for conducting an inquiry as, is envisaged under section 8 of Industrial Relation Ordinance, 1969. The appellant was also called to join the proceedings before the Inquiry Committee and at the conclusion of the proceedings issued a certificate of registration to respondent No.4 under section 9 of the ibid Ordinance vide order, dated 14-6-1993. However, the appellant (Management of the Mills) moved an application on 12-9-1993 to join the proceedings but the same having been already concluded, this application was rejected by respondent No.1 vide order dated 13-6-1993 and thereafter issued a certificate of registration of respondent No.4 on 14-6-1993. The appellant feeling aggrieved questioning the validity of above-said two orders passed by the Registrar filed a Constitutional petition before this Court which stood dismissed vide order, dated 26-9-1993.
3. The grievance of the appellant before the learned Single Bench was that the Registrar did not provide him an opportunity to establish the identity of the members of respondent No.4 as workmen for the purpose of West Pakistan Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The case of the appellant was that all the members of the Trade Union were not employee of the Mill and that the Trade Union with the inclusion of outsiders as its member was not entitled to be registered as such.
The order of registration was defended on the ground that appellant despite repeated requests did not cooperate with the Inquiry Committee and as a result thereof Mukhtar Ahmad, Councillor and an ex-worker of the Mill was associated with the proceedings to identify the members of Trade Union as workmen of the Mill. The writ petition was dismissed with the observation that the right of management to join the proceedings before the Registrar in terms of section 7(2) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was not deniable but in the present case the factual controversy regarding providing an opportunity was not to be. Inquired into by the High Court in the exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction. It was further observed with reference to National Beverage Employee's Union v. Registrar Trade Unions 1986 PLC 533 that the registration of a Trade Union is always a matter between the Trade Union and the Registrar and a third party has no locus standi to question the registration of the Trade Union. However, as held in Abdul Jamil v. Registrar Trade Unions PLD 1971 Lah. 220 and 1992 PLC 23, the action being challengeable under sections 10 and 11 of the Ordinance, the writ petition was not competent.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant reiterating the contention raised by hum before the learned Single Bench submitted that the management was to be essentially associated in the proceedings for the purpose of correct supply of the information to the Registrar and identification of the members of the Trade Union seeking registration. It is also necessary for the management to join the proceedings for the purpose of better understanding and relation inter se of the management and the Trade Union. He in reply to the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the I.C.A. Submitted that the remedy of appeal, revision or review as provided under section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 is not available against the registration of a Trade Union under section 8 of the Industrial Relation Ordinance, 1969. However, the registration can be cancelled on a complaint lodged by the Registrar before the Labour Court as provided under section 10 of the ibid Ordinance and further appeal lies against the order of cancellation to the Labour Appellate Tribunal or the Labour Court as the case may be. He placing reliance on section 7(2) of the Industrial Relation Ordinance, 1969 argued that a Trade Union of workmen shall not be entitled to be registered under the law unless its members are actually engaged or employed in the concerned establishment/Industry. The Registrar without ascertaining the correct position of the status of the members of respondent No-4 issued certificate of registration in violation of the provisions of law on the subject.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4 submitted that the respondent filed an application under section 5 of the industrial Relation Ordinance, 1969 fulfilling all the requirements of the law for the purpose of registration whereupon the Registrar, Trade Union after notice to the appellant and conducting a detailed inquiry in the matter to his satisfaction, issued a certificate of registration. He argued that section 10 of the Industrial Relation Ordinance, 1969 provides a remedy to the appellant to file a complaint through the Registrar, Trade Union which in fact is a remedy available in the nature of review/revision, provided under the relevant law, against the order of registration, the I.CA. Before this Court by virtue of section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 is not competent. He forcefully argued that failure of the appellant to cooperate with the inquiry committee despite repeated requests disentitled him to be associated in the proceedings at final stage and reopen the matter afresh.
6. While disposing of the preliminary objection that the appellant being not authorised to object the registration of Trade Union, was not competent to file the writ petition and that the Registrar being empowered under section- 10 to move the Labour Court for registration in case Trade Union has been registered in contravention of any of the provision of law on the subject, the I.CA. Is not competent. We are of the view that it is the legal duty of the Registrar and the Labour Court to ensure due compliance of provision of law relating to the registration of a Trade Union and in case of contravention of any of the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and rules framed thereunder, the alternate remedy having been provided under section 10 of the Ordinance is to be availed by the Registrar suo motu or upon an application moved by the employer or a rival Trade Union as the case may be. The question whether the members of respondent No.4 were workman or not and they were not employees of Mill being a question of fact can be agitated before the Labour Court by moving the Registrar to proceed in the matter and could not be subject-matter of the proceedings under Article 199 of the Constitution. The law also provide an appeal against cancellation of registration of a Trade Union under section 10 of the Ordinance.
Undoubtedly, the management of the rival Trade Union is not authorized to invoke the jurisdiction of Labour Court for cancellation of registration but the Registrar on their application in suitable cases cannot refuse from taking necessary steps under the law in his discretion. However, the legality of order of Registration of Trade Union, if challenged on any ground other than those mentioned under section 10 of the Ordinance for the purpose of lodging complaint by the Registrar, the writ petition shall be competent and in that case there being no remedy of appeal, revision or review available under the law, Intra-Court Appeal shall not be debarred.
8. As per scheme of law for registration of a Trade Union under Industrial Relation Ordinance, 1969 a Trade Union seeking registration has to move an application before the Registrar, fulfilling the requirements of sections 6 and 7 of the said Ordinance. The Registrar by virtue of section 8 of the Ordinance on being satisfied has to register the Trade Union within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the application subject to the objections and their removal within the period specified therein. In case of non-compliance of the provision of section 8, the Trade Union has the right to prefer an appeal before the Labour Court. The registration of a Trade Union shall be liable to be cancelled if a complaint is filed by the Registrar under section 10 of the Industrial Relation Ordinance before the Labour Court and section 11 provides appeal against the order of cancellation by the Labour Court. The law does not expressly provide right of management to join the proceedings before the Registrar but for the purpose of section 7(2) of the ordinance for necessary information and verification of the strength of workers, their classes and categories with identification and ancillary matter. The management is joined in the proceedings. The management undoubtedly can question the membership of the Trade Union of a person, who is not employed as worker in the establishment. However, the management having no right to interfere in the internal business of the Trade Union, its formation, duties and functions vis-a-vis its members under the scheme of law is not a necessary party in the proceedings before the Registrar. The purpose of Trade Union is to watch the interest of its members and to advance their cause qua their welfare. A trade union is a body exclusively to be constituted by the worker and run day its office-bearers. The management has full authority to supervise and control its employees including the members of the Trade Union qua their responsibility to the discharge of their duties in the establishment but no member of a Trade Union is answerable before the management for his affairs with Trade Unions. However, in case of any violation of the rules of service or commission of any act in relation to the establishment, an employee can be awarded punishment as provided under the law.
8. The crux of the matter is that management having no concern with the business of Trade Union is not essentially to be associated in the proceedings except for the purpose of identification of the members of the Trade Union and their status in the establishment. The appellant despite repeated requests as observed by the learned Single Bench refused to join the proceedings and the Registrar under the compelled circumstances associated the Councillor of the Halqa and an ex- employee of the Mill for the purpose of identification and verification of particulars of the members of Trade Union. Respondents Nos-2 and 3, the rival Trade Unions have not raised objection to the membership of respondent No.2 or objected to its registration at any stage. The registrar as well as the respondent No.4 taking a strong exception to the conduct of the appellant not joining the proceedings prayed dismissal of appeal. The Registrar after determination of factual position regarding membership of respondent No.4 on the date of its registration with their status as workmen as a result of an inquiry conducted, issued certificate of registration to respondent No.4 which matter cannot be agitated in the Constitutional petition. The factual inquiry before Registrar was confined to his satisfaction vis-a-vis the claim of Trade Union and despite the fact that the inquiry remained pending before the Registrar from 24th April to 12th June, 1993, the appellant having knowledge did not join the proceedings, hence was rightly refused to join the same at final stage.
An employer can question the legality of the registration of a Trade Union at the occasion of it to become a collective bargaining agent on the ground that Trade Union does not contain the required number of members. The appellants being management of the establishment has no right to raise objection to the registration of the Trade Union or to limit or extend its membership.
However, the management has right to challenge the legality of the Trade Union.
9. The arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant with reference to 1992 PLC 17, 1991 PLC 207 that appellant being a necessary party was to be essentially associated in the proceedings do not carry much weight. The management in the matter of registration of a Trade Union cannot claim participation in the proceedings as of right under the statute. This participation is in fact for the purpose of convenience of the Registrar to ascertain the correct factual position. Admittedly, two other Trade Unions are in existence in the Mill and it is not understandable how the registration of respondent No.4 adversely effect the appellant and his non-participation in proceedings caused any prejudice to him.
10. As a result of the above discussion, apart from factual controversy regarding non-providing an opportunity of hearing raised by the appellant, he, having an alternate remedy for action under section 10 of Industrial Relation Ordinance, 1969 could not avail the remedy of writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution and an appeal against the order of cancellation of Registration having been provided under section 11 of the said Ordinance, this I.CA. Before this Court by virtue of section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 being not competent stands dismissed with no order as to costs.