1. ' NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, J.---The Petitioners on 2-9-1996 filed this petition against respondent Nos. 1 to 3. On 22-9-1996, they had filed amended petition, wherein National Industrial Relations Commission was joined as respondent No.4. Again on 13-2-1997 they filed second amended petition and prayed for the following reliefs:-
(i) Uphold the ground raised above in the petition in favour of the petitioners.
(ii) Grant stay order, injunctions as prayed by the petitioners in their separate such application.
(iii) Hold and declare that the orders, acts and actions of the Respondent No.1 impugned (Ann J & B) hereto and of the respondent No.4 are illegal, void, arbitrary, mala fide, without jurisdiction and of no legal consequences. .(iv) Hold and declare that the respondent No.1 failed in his functions, acted illegally and arbitrarily by not paying any heed/attention, not replying, going ahead and not deciding the objections raised by the petitioners about the respondent.
(v) Hold and declare that the Respondent No.3 has no locus standi, it is an illegal and invalid body, it is illegally constituted and by violating its constitution and the provisions of I.R.O., 1969 as explained above, it is no longer a legal body and it has ceased to exist as provided by section 10(3)
2. I.R.O., 1969.
(vi) Hold and declare that the criminal proceedings initiated by the respondent No.4 in the Case No.(28) of 1996-K on the same fact and issues as in this petition, issuance of the process, framing of charges against the officials of the petitioners, holding daily proceedings in hot haste and its other actions, orders, refusal to announce/make orders on application under section 249-A, C.P.C. after hearing the arguments and fixing date of announcement are illegal, invalid, arbitrary, in abuse of the law and process and without jurisdiction and the same deserve to be set aside/quashed and held illegal and without jurisdiction by this Hon'ble Court.
(viii) Direct, order and make such other orders, declarations and/or directions and/or give reliefs as may appear to this Hon'ble Court just proper in the circumstances of the case.
3. ' Along with the petition, dated 2-9-1996, the petitioners had filed an Application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151, C.P.C. and prayed therein to restrain respondent No.1 from holding Referendum, which was to be held on 5-9-1996 for determination of C.B.A. in the establishment of the petitioners. Further, it was prayed that respondent Nos.2 and 3 be restrained from participating in said Referendum. The Petitioners had also prayed for a direction to the respondent No.1 not to issue C.B.A. Certificate if the Referendum was held. In the alternative, it was prayed that the Certificate was already issued it be suspended.
4. ' It appears from the comments of respondent No.1 that Referendum was held on 5-9-1996, but its result was not announced pursuance to the order of this Court, dated 4-9-1996, passed in Civil Petition No. S-92 of 1996. Thereafter, on 22-10-1996 this Court recalled a part of Stay Order relating to the announcement of result. Accordingly, the result was announced and C.B.A. Certificate was issued in favour of the respondent No.2, Plastricrafters Mazdoor Union.
5. ' It is noted that after the stay order was recalled the Petition which was filed on 2-9-1996 had become infructuous, as in said petition letters, dated 16-12-1995 and 22-8-1996 of Assistant Director Labour regarding determination of Collective Bargaining Agents, were challenged. In the amended petition filed on 22-9-1996 the reliefs claimed were the same, which were claimed in the petition filed on 2-9-1996. In the second amended petition, the relief at serial numbers (iv), (v) and (vi) were added.
6. ' Mr. S.M. Yaqoob, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that respondent No.3 Union was no longer a legal body and it ceased to exist in view of section 10(3) of I.R.O., 1969, as no election was held in this Union for the last 8 years and also it failed to file return under section 21, of I.R.O. Learned counsel also argued that said Union, having all its office bearers not from amongst the workers of the establishment in violation of section 7(1)(d) of I.R.O., is no longer a legally constituted body.
7. Learned counsel also urged that the Union did not have 1/3rd workers of the establishment as its member, as such, it could not apply for C.B.A. Certificate.
8. ' As against above, learned counsel for the respondents Nos.1 and 3 argued that the petitioners had no locus standi to file this petition as the action of respondent No.1 was legal. They also contended that the respondent No.1, after having received applications for Referendum, directed the petitioners to submit the list of their employees/workers, as is required by clause (a) subsection (4), of section 22 of the I.R.O., but the petitioners had not submitted any such list. Instead, the petitioners raised objections against holding of Referendum, therefore, the respondent No.1 had no option but to file Criminal Complaint No. (28) of 1996-K, under section 15(g) and 53(1)(a), of I.R.O. before the N.I.R.C.
9. It is an admitted position that in view of subs6ctions (4) of section 22 of the I.R.O., the employer shall submit a list of workers to the Registrar, when the latter is to determine as to which Union be collective bargaining agent in the establishment. It appears that the petitioners, instead of assisting the Registrar for above, attempted to cause delay. The representative of respondent No.1 submits that the returns under section 21, of I.R.O. were submitted by the respondent No.3. The registration of a trade union can only be cancelled under section 10, of I.R.O. and not otherwise. All points raised in this petition are disputed facts. While exercising jurisdiction under Article. 199 of the Constitution, the disputed facts cannot be investigated. Prima facie, there is nothing on record to hold that respondent No.3 is an illegal body nor can it be declared that criminal proceedings in Case No.4(28) of 1996-K before N.I.R.C., were mala fide.
10. ' On 20-8-1998, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, we had dismissed this petition in limine and these are the reasons for the same.