1. ' AJMAL MIAN, C.J.---This is a petition fbr leave to appeal against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the. Lahore MO Court passed in Writ Petition No, 361 of 1998, filed by respondent No, 5 Jeeway Pakistan Union Lakson Tobacco Limited, assailing two orders dated 16-2-1998 passed by a Bench of respondent No,1 National Industrial Relations Commission, allowing the same as follows: "In view of the above discussion, both the orders of Full Bench, dated 16-2-1998 cannot be sustained and are set aside accordingly and it will be deemed that the appeals filed by respondents Nos.3 and 4 were pending before it. The Full Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission will record its findings on the appeals filed by the respondents within a period of thirty days from today taking into consideration the objections of the parties, in particular the jurisdiction of the Commission to entertain the petition under section 22(8)(g) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Since both the orders of the Full Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission, dated 16-2-1998 have been set aside, all consequential action taken thereunder, including holding of referendum 17-2-1998, will be of no legal effect. The writ petition is allowed accordingly with no orders as to costs:"
2. ' The brief facts are that respondent No,5 (leeway Pakistan Workers Union Lakson Tobacco Company Limited) was certified as Collective Bargaining Agent (C.B.A.) under the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the I.R.O.) from 10-1-1996, in Lakson Tobacco Company Limited, Rawalpindi (respondent No,7). Previous to the said Union, the petitioner had been acting as C.B.A. for the period of eight years. It appears that the referendum for elections of new C.B.A. was due in January, 1998. Respondent No,5 Union moved the Labour Department, headed by the Registrar of Trade Unions, Rawalpindi Region, alleging that several workers were performing their duties in the establishment of respondent No,7 for the last several years, but in violation of Standing Order No, 2-A they were being treated as daily wagers and thereby respondent No,7 was avoiding payment of substantial amount towards Social Security Institution, Old Age Benefit Institutions, Workers Welfare Fund and Education Cess and so also gratuity, house rent, cost of living and other allowances. On the above complaint inspection was carried out by the officers of respondent No,4 (Registrar of Trade Unions, Rawalpindi Region) and by their report dated 15-1-1997 informed that 134 workers were found working for respondent No,7 without having any proper appointment letters. Thereupon, respondent No,5 represented to the employer for regularization of service of such workers and having received no response, approached National Industrial Relations Commission through a petition under section 22-A(8)(g) of the I.R.O. for regularization of the above workers and inclusion of their names for voting purpose. The above application was taken up by a Single-Member of the N.I.R.C., who initially appointed Deputy Registrar of the Commission for visiting the establishment. He, on investigation, found that 134 workers. were actually working in respondent No,7. However, he verified the names of 40 persons who were regularly working in the establishment for the last 3/4 years but respondent No, 7 had failed to regularize their services. He also reported that respondent No,7 did not cooperate with him.
3. The learned Single Member on receipt of the above report by his order dated 13-1-1998, directed respondent No,3 for regularization of 40 workers referred to in the report of the above Deputy Registrar/Assistant Director, Labour Welfare (Inspection), Rawalpindi. Deputy Registrar/Assistant Director, Labour Welfare (Inspection), Rawalpindi was also directed to complete the scrutiny in respect of remaining workers by 15-1-1998. By another order dated 27-1-1998, the learned Single Member of the Commission further directed respondent No,4 for inclusion of the names of above 40 workers in the list of voters for the purpose of referendum. Against the above two orders of the learned Single Member of the Commission, respondent No,4 (Registrar of Trade Unions, Rawalpindi Region) and respondent No,7 (Lakson Tobacco Company Limited) preferred appeals before the Full Bench of the Commission, the Full Bench by its order dated 16-2-1998 suspended the order dated 13-1-1998 of the learned Single Member of the Commission. It also clarified that during the pendency of the appeals and interim order allowed by it, the proceedings in the main petition pending before the Single Bench shall not be prejudiced. Respondent No,5 Union filed the above writ petition, which was allowed in the above terms on the ground that in the Full Bench there were two Members instead of three Members as required by subsection (2)(a) of section 22-B of the I.R.O. in the above terms. The petitioner Union has, therefore, filed the present petition for leave to appeal.
4. ' In support of the above petition, Mr. M. Asghar Khadim, learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the High Court by taking the above view has rendered the provisions of subsection (4) of section 22-B of the I.R.O. redundant. The above contention is devoid of any force. It would be pertinent to reproduce subsection (2) and subsection (4) of the above section 22-B of the I.R.O. which reads as follows: "22-B. (2) For the efficient performance' of the functions of the Commission, the Chairman shall constitute--
(a) a Full Bench of the Commission which shall consist of not less than three members of the Commission; and Bench comprising two members instead of three Members. In other words, for the purpose of the impugned order the matter was not heard by a Full Bench in terms of clause (a) of subsection (2) of section 22-B of the I.R.O. In this view of the matter, no exception can be taken to the impugned