M. C. P. Employees' Union hereinafter referred to as the petitioner-- Union claiming itself to be the sole Union in the Establishment of Messers Mechanized Construction of Pakistan Ltd., Shalamar Workshop, Shalamar, Lahore and further claiming to have as its members not less than 1/3rd of the total number of workmen employed in the said establishment applied to the Registrar, Trade Unions, Lahore Region, Lahore for the issuance of the certificate of C. B. A. Under section 22 (1) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The said Registrar after making the necessary enquiry issued a certificate dated 22-3-1975 in favour of the petitioner-Union to the effect that the said Union was certified as C. B. A. For Mechanized Construc--tion of Pakistan Ltd, Shalamar, Lahore. Subsequently General Secretary of Pakistan Hydro Electric Central Labour Union. Lahore i.e. The respon--dent No. 2 represented to the Registrar that the said Union had an active membership in the M. C. P.
Shalamar Workshop and therefore M. C. P. Employees' Union, Lahore could not be declared C. B. A.
Under section 22(1) of the I. R. O., 1969. On this representation the Registrar asked the petitioner- Union to explain the situation. An explanation was furnished by the petitioner-Union but the Registrar vide his order dated 10-5-1975 withdrew the C. B. A. Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner-Union on 22-3-1975.
2. On 21-5-1975 the petitioner-Union filed the under-consideration petition under section 34 of the 1.
R. O., 1969 claiming relief to the effect that the respondent No. I viz. The Registrar, Trade Unions, Lahore Region, Lahore be directed not to withdraw the certificate of C. B. A. By violating the guaranteed right of the petitioner and he be further directed to withdraw his alleged illegal order dated 1C-5-1975.
3. It is contended by the petitioner-Union that Messers M. C. P. Ltd., was quite independent private Limited Company. It was registered under the Companies Act, 1913. Since its registration as such it had nothing to do with WAPDA. The petitioner-Union was the only registered Trade Union in the establishment of respondent No. 3. It has its member--ship exceeding 1/3rd of the total number of employees in the said establish--ment, 'the respondent No, 2 according to his own constitution could not extend its membership in the establishment of respondent No. 3. It has also teen contended by the petitioner that the petitioner-Union has nego--tiated settlements with respondent No. 3 acting as C. B. A. And the said respondent has acknowledged it as C. B. A.
4. Alongwith application under section 34, the petitioner-Union also moved an application for an interim stay. On the stay application and interim stay order was issued to the effect that the operation of the impugned order dated 10-5-1975 made by the respondent No. 1 was suspended in the meanwhile.
5. Respondents 1 and 2 resisted the petitioner's application and pleaded inter alia that since the certificate of C. B. A. Issued in favour of the petitioner --Union has already been withdrawn, an application by it under section 34 was not competent and further that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to issue stay order in the nature of temporary injunction within the meaning of order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2 of the C. P. C. Respondent No. 3 impliedly supported the petition of the petitioner-Union. This respondent contended that it was in no way connected with WAPDA since 1- 9-1974 when it came into being as an independent private limited Company under the Companies Act, 1913. The employer also maintained that petitioner-Union was the only registered Union in the establishment of the Employer. Arguments have been beard in the first instance for the disposal of preliminary objections raised by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and also for the disposal of stay application.
6. As regards the preliminary objections to the main petition respon--dents Nos. 1 and 2 have, as already stated, vehemently contended that the petitioner-Union was not C. B. A. And therefore had no locus standi to file an application under section 31 of the I. R. O. 1969. According to section 34 ibid any collective bargaining agent may apply to the Labour Court for the enforcement of any right guaranteed or secured to it by or under any law or any award or settlement. This is an admitted fact that respondent No. 1 after making the necessary enquiry certified the petitioner-Union as C. B.
A. Under section 22 (l) ibid holding it as the sole registered Union in the establishment of respondent No. 3 having its membership more than 1/3rd of the total member of employees of the said establishment. This is also an admitted fact that respondent No. 3 has executed settlements which are Annexures D & E with the petitioner-Union acknowledging it as the C. B. A. Even in the reply statement, respondent No. 3 has admitted that the petitioner-Union was the only registered Union in the establishment of respondent No. 3 and that the said respondent has acknowledged it as C. B. A. The action of the Registrar whereby the C. B. A. Certificate has been withdrawn has been challenged as illegal and void by the petitioner through the present petition. Moreover under section 52 of the I. R. 0, the petitioner-Union which has already been recognized by the employer as C. B. A. Can at or function as C. B. A. Under this Ordinance. In the circumstances in spite of the impugned order of the Registrar whereby the C. B. A. Certificate of the petitioner-Union has been withdrawn, the present application filed by the petitioner-Union is legally competent and the preliminary objection raised in this behalf by the respondents Nos. I and 2 is overruled.
7. As regards the stay application it has been vehemently argued on behalf of the respondent No. 2 that the Labour Court in exercise of its statutory jurisdiction cannot issue Stay Order in the terms of Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, C. P. C. Which can only be issued by the Court of general jurisdiction i.e. The Civil Court. In support of this contention reliance on behalf of the respondent has been placed on certain judicial precedents of Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal and of Sind-Baluchistan High Court. With utmost respect for such judicial precedents, we find that a Court which has jurisdiction to grant a permanent relief has also the power to grant an interim relief. This view is quite in accord with the enunciations of the Lahore High Court and those of the Supreme Court of Pakistan.
8. In view of the above, it is concluded that the stay application is legally competent and the stay as prayed for if granted on merits may be issued by this Court.
9. As already observed the pasties is this case were asked in the first instance to address the Court for the disposal of the preliminary objection raised by the respondents and for the disposal of stay application but during course of arguments even the merits of the case were also exhaustably dealt with and we find that the case can be disposed of finally without taking any further proceedings.
10. As regards the merits of the case, this is an admitted V fact that respondent No. I after making the necessary enquiries issued the certificate in favour of the petitioner-Union on 22-3-1975 to the effect that the said Union was certified as C. B. A. For the establishment of re3pondcnt No. 3. This was done by respondent No. 1 in exercise of his powers conferred on him by section 22 (1) of the I. R.
O. It is noteworthy that there is no provision in the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 empowering the Registrar to withdraw the certificate of C. B. A. Once issued by him in favour of a Trade Union. In the under consideration case Registrar while with-- drawing certificate of C.
13. A. Issued by him in favour of the petitioner Union by his impugned order dated 10-5-1975 purports to have acted under section 21 of the General Clauses Act. This is true that an authority competent to make an order has also t33c power to undo it under section 21 of the General Clauses Aw: but it is to be borne in mind that such order cannot be withdrawn or rescinded once cc taro rights under it have been created in favour of any individual and it has taken the legal effect. In Pakistan v. Mohammad Himayatullah Farukhi (PLD 1969 SC 407) it bas been held by the Supreme Court of Pakistan that there can hardly be any dispute with the rule that apart from the provisions of section 21 of the General Clauses Act, locus poenitentiae i.e. Power of receding till a decisive step is taken, is available to the Government or the relevant authorities. In fact, the existence of such a power is necessary in the case of all authorities empowered to pass orders to retrace, the wrong steps taken by them. The authority that has the power to make an order has also the power to undo it. But this is subject to the exception that where the order has taken legal effect, and in pursuance thereof certain rights have been created in favour of any individual, such an order cannot be withdrawn or rescinded to the detriment of those rights. The basic authority on the principle of locus poenitentiae is the judgment of the Federal Court of Pakistan In re: Shahbaz v. The State (PLD 1956 FC 46). In the under- consideration case after the issuance of C. B. A. Certificate in favour of the petitioner-Union the said Union executed the agreements with the employer on 22-4-1975 and 20-5-1975 which are Annexure ---A--- and Annexure ---B---. This means that the C. B. A. Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner-Union had already taken effect and certain rights have already been created in favour of the petitioner-I Union. In these circumstances the C. B. A. Certificate issued in favour of petitioner-Union cannot legally be withdrawn by the Registrar under section 21 of the General Clauses Act. His impugned order dated 10-5-19751 whereby he has withdrawn the C. B. A. Certificate is therefore devoid of --any legal force. It is however noteworthy that respondent No. 2 if in fact its membership is extended to the establishment of respondent No. 3 can claim for holding of referendum and respondent No. 1 would be at liberty to hold a secret ballot to determine as to which one of 2 Trade Unions should be the C. B. A. For the establishment of respondent No. 3. The protection of a period 2 years under section 22 (10) ibid is not available to the petitioner-Union because that protection is available to that Union only which has been ascertained as C. B. A. As a result of secret ballot.
11. In view of the above, I accept the application of the petitioner --Union and direct respondent No. 1 not to at upon his impugned order dated 10-5-1975 which is devoid of any legal force. It is further directed that respondents should not interfere with the right of peti--tioner to at as C. B. A. Till some other Union is ascertained as C. B. A. As a result of secret ballot.