' The petitioner/Union was allegedly established on 21-3-1994. It submitted an application to the Registrar for its registration who delayed the matter for more that fifteen days. An appeal was preferred before the Labour Court under section 8(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
During the pendency of the appeal: the application of the petitioner for registration of the Union, was dismissed by the Registrar vide his order dated 1-12-1994. The said order, was challenged before Punjab Labour Court No,9, Multan, who allowed the appeal on 30-4-1995. The employer/respondent No,3 and another Union/respondent No,4, filed revision petitions before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal under section 38(3a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
Subsequently, respondent No,4 withdrew the revision petition. However, revision petition filed by respondent No,3, was accepted on 24-12-1999 by respondent No, 1 .
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the employer respondent No,3 had no locus standi to challenge the order of the Labour Court before the Labour Appellate Tribunal. Reliance was placed on 1998 PLC (Labour) 500. He further submitted that the petitioner was not associated with the inquiry by the Registrar while conducting an inquiry for registration of the union. He argued that under section 3 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, there was no clause entailing penalty as such the worker could be the Member of two unions. Reliance was placed on 1980 PLC (Labour)
446. Lastly, he argued that section 7(2b) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, was ultra vires of Article 17 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
3. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that respondent had the locus standi as he was an aggrieved person. Reliance was placed on 1986 SCM R 1071, 1999 PLC (Labour) 312, 2000 PLC (Labour) 1, 2001 PLC (Labour) 441. Learned counsel urged that the petitioner did not join the inquiry. Only 10 persons appeared before the Deputy Director, Labour Welfare/Enquiry Officer, out of which four have already resigned. He argued that if a workman is already a Member of Trade Union and he subsequently joins another Union, the membership of the latter Union will prevail. The repugnancy of section 7(2-b) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, the Article 17 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, was also denied.
4. I have gone through the orders of the Courts below and perused the order. I tend to agree with the learned counsel for the respondent that the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal had the suo motu jurisdiction under section 38(3a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, to call for the record of any case or proceedings. An information was laid before the learned Appellate Tribunal by the respondent regarding the illegality and propriety of the order. The Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Messrs Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society Limited v. Muhammad Javed Iqbal and another (1986 SCM R 1071) observed as under:-- "So far as the first argument is concerned, no principle of law or any precedent was quoted to show that the suo motu statutory power cannot be invoked by the authority vested with it on the application of a party to proceedings before the subordinate forum or authorities. On a perusal of the provisions of subsection (3-a) of section 38, we find no warrant to hold that there would be any bar on the Tribunal to exercise this jurisdiction, if the requisite information comes before it from any source including an application made by any party. Apparently the jurisdiction seems to be supervisory in nature in order to enable the Tribunal which is at the apex of the hierarchy of Tribunals set up by the Industrial Relations Ordinance, to examine the illegality or propriety of proceedings taken or any order passed by subordinate Tribunals".
' The authority relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the instant case. In the said case, it was held that neither the employer nor the trade union already existing in the same establishment could claim locus standi to challenge the decision of the Registrar merely on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was provided to it. In the instant case the decision of the Labour Court has been challenged in a revision petition, as such ratio laid down in the said case will not be applicable to the instant case.
5. Section 7(2) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, does not provide for holding of an inquiry but it lays down that a trade union of workmen shall not be entitled to registration under the Ordinance unless all its Members are workmen actually engaged or employed in the Industry and that where there are two or more registered trade unions in the establishment, group of establishments or industry with which the trade union is connected unless it has, as its members not less than 1/5th of the total number of workmen employed in such establishment/industry, as the case may be. In the instant case, an inquiry was conducted by the Deputy Director (Labour)
Welfare and the total membership claimed by the petitioner/Union was 86. It is stated in the enquiry report that the petitioner/Union given in writing that they did not want an inquiry till the decision of the Punjab Labour Court. Ten Officers of the Union appeared before the Inquiry Officer and made their statements before him taking the same stand point. Out of the said ten, four have resigned. It was for'the members to appear before the Enquiry Officer to show that they were the workmen working in the establishment or the Industry. Since they chose to be absent they cannot turn around and claim that they were not associated with the inquiry. Even otherwise, the Enquiry Officer was satisfied that the petitioner/Union did not have the requisite members i,e, 1/5th of the total number of workmen employed in the establishment/industry. The learned Labour Court also did not record any evidence to find out whether the petitioner/Union had the requisite strength of the total number of workmen employed in the establishment.
' As far as the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that section 7(2-b) of I.R.O., was repugnant to Article 17 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, suffice it to say that the Ordinance, 1969 has been repealed by the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002. In this view of the matter, it is not necessary to go into this question at this stage nor any useful purpose will be served by remanding this case to the Registrar. If the petitioner has, as its Members, not less than 1/5th of the total number of workmen employed with respondent No,3, it can approach the Registrar for its registration.
6. For what has been stated above, this petition has no merit and is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.