' The writ petitioner in this writ petition seeks a declaration that C.B.A. Certificate issued by the respondent No,1 in respect of respondent No,3 may be declared as without lawful authority and the order of issuance of such certificate be quashed.
2. The background of the case is that the petitioner Union is a registered trade union of workmen employed in the Punjab Irrigation and Power Department and is a body corporate, hence it can sue under its name and that there are a large number of trade unions functioning in the Irrigation Department, so one of the Union moved the National Industrial Relations Commission for certifying the Irrigation and Power Department into different Collective Bargaining Units and ultimately the National Industrial Relations Commission determined seven Collective Bargaining Units and that against the order of the National Industrial Relations Commission an appeal filed before the learned Full Bench of the said Commission which was dismissed, however, against which Writ Petition No, 818 of 1991 was filed in this Hon'ble Court and order of the National Industrial Relations Commission was suspended and the said Writ Petition is still pending, however, all the parties in the writ petition want to get certify whole of the Irrigation and Power Department as one Collective Bargaining Unit. In the meanwhile the National Industrial Relations Commission while treating Irrigation and Power Department as one Collective Bargaining Unit issued a Collective Bargaining Agent Certificate in favour of Trade Union registered under the name and style of the Pakistan Irrigation Employees Power Union. An appeal was preferred against that order which stood dismissed. Thereafter, the respondent No,1 held election/referendum between the respondents Nos.
2 to 4 in which respondents Nos.2 and 3 get more votes than the respondent No,4 but since none of the two unions got prescribed number of votes, so second round was held, in which only respondents Nos. 2 and 3 took part and according to respondent No,1 the respondent No,3 got more votes so he was declared entitled for Collective Bargaining Agent Certificate and was granted the Collective Bargaining Agent Certificate. The respondent No,1 has no lawful authority to grant the Collective Bargaining Agent Certificate to respondent No, 1 .
3. The grounds agitated by the petitioner are that since industry-wise trade union is functioning as C.B.A. In Irrigation and Power Department, so two unions could not act as C.B.A. Simultaneously in an establishment. And that once National Industrial Relations Commission issues a C.B.A.
Certificates in favour of industry-wise trade union then the respondent No,1 has no lawful authority to hold a referendum in Irrigation and Power Department in Store and Workshop Division, Sheikhupura, and that once a case regarding the C.B.U. Is pending in the National Industrial Relations Commission then the Provincial Registrar of Trade Unions have no jurisdiction whatsoever, to hold a referendum and that the respondent No,1 has illegally held the referendum so it has no authority to C.B.A. Certificate and that there are eleven registered trade unions but only three unions were invited for referendum and that the petitioner has no other alternate, adequate and efficacious remedy except to invoke this extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court.
4. Notice was given to the respondents and respondent No,3 took the preliminary objection that the petition was not maintainable under the law as it has been filed by concealment and mis- statement of material facts and that the referendum was held under the directions of the Hon'ble Lahore High Court, as ordered in the Intra-Court Appeal on 18-10-1999 and that this fact has not been disclosed in the main petition or in the stay application with mala fide intention.
5. In reply to this objection the learned counsel for petitioner submitted that he was not a party before the Hon'ble Division Bench where the I.C.A. Was heard. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that where an order is passed against law or without lawful authority, the Hon'ble High Court has got the power in the writ to declare it so and quash it. He has referred to section 22- EE of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, according to which once the National Industrial Relations Commission has determined the C.B.U. Then no referendum could be held otherwise than the C.B.U. Determined by the National Industrial Relations Commission and in this case the C.B.U.
Was determined by the National Industrial Relations Commission and the same was upheld by the Hon'ble Single Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission and that all the Trade Unions have filed writ petition which is pending before my learned brother (M. Javed Butter, J.) for decision and the C.B.A. Certificate has been issued in favour of the Trade Union which is still in the field and even against that order a writ petition has been admitted to regular hearing by the Hon'ble High Court with notice to other side for 10-5-2000.
6. I have given due consideration to the valuable arguments on both sides. The admitted position is that a Writ Petition No,2310 of 1986 was filed which was accepted and a learned Single Judge of this Court 'vide order, dated 17-10-1990 declared the C.B.A. Certificate as illegal. Against that order an Intra-Court Appeal bearing No, 255 of 1990 was preferred which was disposed of by the Hon'ble Division Bench of the High Court vide order, dated 18-10-1999 with a direction to the Registrar Trade Unions, Punjab to call all the concerned Unions, make arrangements for holding referendum and complete the same within a period of two months. It was also observed that in case the Registrar Trade Unions, Punjab, comes to the conclusion that the matter in hand does not relate to his office and is related to the office of the Registrar Trade Unions, Lahore Region, Lahore, the matter shall he referred to the Registrar Trade Unions, Lahore Region, Lahore who shall make arrangement for the holding and completion of the referendum for the determination of the. C.B.A. Within a period of two months.
8. The question is as to whether when it comes to the knowledge of the Hon'ble Single Bench of this Court that the subject-matter which the Hon'ble Single Bench is to deal has already been dealt with by an Hon'ble Division Bench can it interfere in it in exercise its Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution. The answer is a big "No". The authority for it lies in the case of Muhammad Ikram Chaudhry, etc. v. Federation of Pakistan, etc. PLD 1998 SC 103 in which almost the entire case-law on the subject has been considered and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan observed: "There seems to be unanimity of view among the superior Courts on the question that a High Court or the Supreme Court cannot in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution interfere with an order passed by another Judge or another Bench of the same Court."
9. For the above reasons this Court sitting singly has got no jurisdiction to bypass or interfere the order passed by an Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction.
The matter was in the knowledge of the petitioners and as such the petitioner is burdened with a cost of Rs,10,000 for concealment of that fact. The said cost will be deposited in the Treasury.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed in the above terms.