1. AWARD The above-mentioned two applications have been moved under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. The Application No. 32/72 is in respect of 13 workers as named therein and alleged to be the members of the applicant-Union. It prays for their re-instatement in service with all back benefits. The Application No. 101/72 is in respect of 6 employees/workers of the respondent No. 1 as named therein, and prays for the cancellation of their transfer orders allegedly passed on mala fide grounds. On summons, the respondent No. 1 has raised a legal plea in both these matters and prayed for a decision on that preliminary point. In both these matters, the attorney of the respondent No. 1 has produced photo stat copies of the certificate granted by the Registrar of Trade Unions Sind at Karachi in favour of "Agricultural Machinery Workshop Workers Union, Hyderabad Division, Tandojam", certifying them as the Collective Bargaining Agent for the workmen of Agricultural Machinery Workshop Tandojam. The certificate relied upon by the applicant-Union for their capacity as Collective Bargaining Agents, is admittedly of a date prior to that which has been granted to their rival Union on 3rd July 1972. In fact, the "Workers Union'* holding this certificate entitling themselves to be Collective Bargaining Agents, have filed applications for being made party in these petitions. Since it was argued on behalf of respondent No. 1 that this application moved by a Union which is not the recognised Collective Bargaining Agent, is not maintainable. I have heard the learned Representatives from both sides at length in Application No. 32/72. They have by a consent application placed on record of Application No. 101/72, adopted the same arguments for this other application also and this order would disposes of both these applies tions. Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi on behalf of the applicant has contended that the certificate dated 3rd July 1972 issued by the Registrar of Trade Unions in favour of the rival "Workers* Union'* is not legal as no ballot was held by the concerned authority in accordance with the provisions of section 22 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. He therefore asserts that the applicant- Union which was recognised by the respondent under their letter dated 2nd March 1970 still continues to be the Collective Baragining Agents for the employees in accordance with law. He has relied upon 1972 PLC 497.1 have gone through this. It is sufficient to say that on facts this case is distinguishable inasmuch as the rival Union has actually produced a certificate dated 3rd July 1972 certifying them as the Collective Bargaining Agents and further that it is that Union which is recognised by the respondent also. The objection that this certificate has been issued by the Registrar of Trade Unions at Karachi without holding any ballot or without going through the procedure provided under section 22 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance also cannot be upheld as in the presence of the certificate it shall be presumed that it was issued legally and properly. In other words, there is a presumption of law regarding correctness of official acts, and indeed this application does not require any adjudication in this respect. I accordingly hold that the capacity of the applicant as Collective Bargaining Agent stands superceded by the certificate dated 3rd July 1972 of the Registrar of Trade Unions, Karachi issued in favour of the rival Unioni which is recognised by the respondents and who have actually prayed to be impleaded as a party in these applications. In the result, I find that theL applicants are not the Collective Bargaining Agents in the eye of law and as such the objection on behalf of respondent No. 1 is upheld. These applica-l tions are therefore dismissed as not legally maintainable.