' This is a petition under section 8(7) of the I.R.O, 1969 read with Regulation 10 of the N.I.R.C.
(Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973 filed by the petitioner as the Member and General Secretary of Pakistan Telecommunication Staff Union, Western Telecommunication Region, Quetta which is also enjoying the status of C.BA. It was contended by the petitioner that respondent No,1 who was the previous General Secretary of the Collective Bargaining Agent, is not handing over the charge of the post of General Secretary to the application in spite of the fact that the applicant was elected as the General Secretary of the Pakistan Telecommunication Staff Union, Western Telecommunication Region, Quetta on 7-9-1994. It was further contended that respondents Nos. 2 to 5 are illegally and unlawfully treating the respondent No,1 as the General Secretary of the union.
Under such circumstances this Commission registered the petition and issued interim injunction Order dated 22-2-1995 in favour of the petitioner.
2. The petition was strongly contested by the respondent No,1 by way of filing of written statement and rejoinder to the application. An application seeking modification in the order dated 22-2-1995 was also filed upon which after considering the submission of the applicant exercised its powers under Order 39, Rule 4 of the C.P.C. Read with Regulation 19 of the N.I.R.C. (Procedure and Functions)
Regulation, 1973 whereby the Order, dated 22-2-1995 was modified.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also considered documents filed by them on record. In the meanwhile, Mr. Kamran Murtaza, Advocate has also filed his power on ,behalf of the Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation respondents Nos. 2 to 5 and orally submitted that respondents Nos. 2 to 5 have been wrongly joined in the proceeding and are not concerned with fact of the decision in this case.
4. Before considering merits of the case I deemed it proper to asses my jurisdiction as a Member of this Commission to entertain the petition under the provision of section 8(7) of the I.R.O., 1969. For ready reference it is convenient to reproduce the provision of section 8(7) of the I.R.O., 1969:-- "In case there is a dispute in relation to the change of officers of a trade union is aggrieved by the refusal of the Registrar under subsection (5), any Officer or Member of the trade union may apply or appeal to the Labour Court, who shall within 7 days of receipt of the application or appeal, as the case may be, pass an order either directing the Registrar to register the change, make alteration in the constitution or in the officers of the trade union or may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, direct the Registrar to hold fresh elections of the union under his supervision."
5. After going through this provision it is evident that any officer or member of the trade union may apply or appeal in case there is a dispute in relation to the change of the Officers of a trade union to the Labour Court. This Ordinance under Industrial Relation Ordinance, 1969 has also provided the definition of a Labour Court under the provision of section 2(xv) i,e, a Labour Court means, a Court established under section 35. Section 35 has specifically vested the powers in the Provincial Government to establish any Court by issuance of Notification in the official Gazette and can also specify territorial limits of its jurisdiction etc. While, the Commission has been constituted and enjoy its powers under the provisions of sections 22-A to 22-F of the I.R.O., 1969 and do not qualify the definition of Labour Court. Therefore, on the face of it the application under the provision of section 8(7) of the I.R.O., 1969 cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Commission by any way.
6. As a result of the above discussion I have no other option but to declare the application in hand as without jurisdiction and not maintainable which is dismissed without any orders as to costs.