MIAN MUHAMMAD AKRAM BAITU, J.--- Through this intra Court Appeal under Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, the appellant has called in question the legality of judgment dated 6.5.2003 passed by the learned Single Judge in Chamber in Writ Petition No. 1796/2003 whereby the writ petition was dismissed.
2. The facts Of the case, in a narrow compass, giving rise to this I.C.A. Are that the appellant as well as respondents Nos. 2 to 5 are registered trade unions under I.R.O., 2002, in the establishment of Kot Addu Power Company (KAPCO); that on the application of the appellant union a referendum for the determination of Collective Bargaining Agent was held on 2.5.2001 amongst the trade unions and appellant union won the referendum and the then Registrar of Trade Unions, D.G. Khan issued certificate of C.B.A. To the appellant union alongwith covering letter dated 3.5.2001 under Section 22(9)(e) of I.R.O., 1969 which is annexure-A. It is further narrated by the appellant that although no tenure of C.B.A. Has been fixed in I.R.O., 1969 yet there was a provision of Section 22(10) in the I.R.O., 1969 for the purpose of entertaining fresh application for holding referendum after a period of 2 years i.e. On or after 2.5.2003; that I.R.O., 1969 was repealed and replaced by the I.R.O., 2002 and gazetted on 26.10.2002. Apart from that a change was also made in the corresponding provision for entertaining fresh application for the determination of C.B.A. Referendum whereby no application for determination of the C.B.A. Shall be entertained within a period of three years from the date of such certification except where the registration of such a registered trade union is cancelled before the expiry of that period. In view of Section 80(2)(b) the appellant union sought clarification towards the tenure of C.B.A. From respondent No. 1 through its application dated 31.3.2003 and the respondent No. 1 responded the same vide the impugned order dated 1.4.2003 that the C.B.A. Certificate issued to the appellant union is valid for two years. Thereafter the respondent No. 2/Al-Bark KAPCO Employees Union submitted an application to the respondent No. 1 for holding referendum for the determination of C.B.A. In the month of May, 2003 which was entertained by respondent No. 1 prior to the expiry of period of three years, whereupon the respondent No. 1 issued notice dated 3.5.2003 to the appellant union. That the appellant union filed a Writ Petition No. 1796/2003 against the order dated 1.4.2003 with the prayer that the order dated 1.4.2003 issued by the respondent No. 1 and the entertaining of application on behalf of respondent No. 2 and subsequent proceedings by respondent No. 1 may be declared illegal, ultra vires, without jurisdiction, without lawful authority, ma/a fide, inoperative and ineffective and that respondent No. 1 be restrained to entertain any application from any rival union and conducting proceedings in pursuance thereof for the determination of C.B.A. Through referendum before the expiry of three years. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition and passed the impugned judgment. Hence this Intra Court Appeal.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned judgment is against the law and facts; that the I.R.O., 1969 was repealed on 26.10.2002 and in its place I.R.O., 2002 was promulgated and respondent No. 2 union applied under Section 20 of sub-section (ii) of I.R.O., 2002 for holding referendum in the KAPCO to which respondent No. 1 entertained the application contrary to the provision of aforesaid section whereby such like application before the expiry of the period of three years of certification as C.B.A. Does 'not lie which was legally to expire on 2.5.2004.
The learned counsel went on arguing that respondent No. 2 was not competent to entertain the application in view of the relevant provision of Section 20(10) of I.R.O., 2002.
5. On the contrary the learned counsel 'for the respondents, though repelled the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant contending that sub-clause (A) and (B) of clause 2 of Section 80 are for the intent and purpose of validating 'the acts do.Ne under the I.R.O., 1969 since repealed. It is further argued that Section 20(11) of I.R.O., 2002 cannot be interpreted to the retrospective effect, therefore, the appellant cannot take the benefit 'of aforesaid section, as such, the mandate by the Electoral College was for a span of 2 years and it cannot be extended for 3 years.
6. We are afraid that the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respondents are devoid of any legal force, for the reason being that I.R.O., 1969 was repealed and in its place I.R.O., 2002 was promulgated when respondent No. 2 union applied -under Section 20(10) of I.R.O., 2002 for holding referendum in the KAPCO to which respondent No. 1 was not well within the jurisdiction to entertain the application of respondent No. 2 in view of the relevant provision of Section 20(11) of I.R.O., 2002 which prevent the Registrar of Trade Union to entertain the application before the expiry of a period of three years, the certificate of which was to expire on 2.5.2004. Inasmuch as the Registrar of Trade Unions keeping in view the provision of Section 22(10) of repealed 1969 and after entertaining the application, has started proceedings thereto, therefore, the entertain of the application as well as the proceedings for holding referendum on the part of respondent No. 1, prior to the expiry of period of three years, suffer from illegality, without jurisdiction and without lawful authority in view of the judgment passed by this Court in I.C.A. No. 866/2002 as well as in view of S. 20(10). Of I.R.O., 2002.
7. In view of what has been discussed above, we accept the Intra Court Appeal and as a result thereof declare the action of respondent No. 1 whereby he has entertained the application of respondent No. 2 and started proceedings thereupon for determination of CBA before the expiry of the period mentioned in Section 20, sub-section (1) of the I.R.O., 2002, to be void and without lawful authority. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.
ICA Accepted.