' MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.---The instant I.C.A. No,445 of 2002 as also I.C.A. No,462 of 2002, are being disposed of together, as common questions of law and facts are involved in both these matters.
2. The appellant is a limited company having a trade union. At a point of time, three rival groups of the union, claiming to be the elected representatives of the union, applied to the Registrar of the Trade Union under section 8 of the I.R.O. For the registration of their group as an elected body.
These applications were rejected by the Registrar holding, that none of the applicants has been able to establish of being duly elected. Against the above order, all the three rival groups, filed appeals before the Labour Court under section 8(7) of the I.R.O. Which were dismissed. However, the Labour Court issued a direction to the Registrar to hold fresh election after preparing a genuine voters list. Thereafter, the process of election was commenced by the Registrar and while preparing the voters list, one Muhammad Akbar (the writ petitioner), was not accepted to be a workman. Against this order, Muhammad Akbar, filed Writ Petition No,26444 of 1998 before this Court, and the case was remanded to the Registrar for its decision afresh. After the remand, the Registrar, through the order dated 26-1-2002, -again held that Muhammad Akbar was not a workman. Aggrieved of this, he filed an application under sections 11 and 17 of the Punjab Industrial Relations Rules, 1973 read with section 8(7) of the I.R.O. 1969, before the Labour Court. This application was rejected through the order dated 19-2-2002. Muhammad Akbar challenged this order in Writ Petition No,3390 of 2002, which has been allowed by the learned Single Judge in Chamber, through the impugned judgment dated 16-5-2002. None of the rival groups of the trade union has come forward to challenge this order. It is the company, which has filed the present appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent (writ petitioner), at the very outset, has raised a preliminary objection that, the present appeal is not competent in view of proviso to section 2 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, because the Writ Petition No,3390 of 2002, has arisen out of the proceedings, in which the right of appeal was provided and was availed by the three rival groups by filing appeals under section 8(7) of the I.R.O., before the Labour Court, which were dismissed, but direction was issued to the Registrar to hold the fresh elections after preparing the genuine voters list. Resultantly, the present appeal is not competent. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon Mst. Karim Bibi and others v. Hussain Bakhsh and another (PLD 1984 SC 344) and Syed Arif Raza Rizvi v. Messrs Pakistan International Airlines through Chairman/M.D, Karachi, (PLD 2001 SC 182).
3. Answering the preliminary objection, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the orders impugned in Writ Petition No,3390 of 2002, by the writ petitioner, were independent in nature and have nothing to do with the earlier proceedings initiated by the three rival groups qua their registration, resultantly, the bar contained in proviso to subsection (2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 has no application. It is further contended that the orders impugned in the writ petition, are not appealable under the law and, therefore, the present I.C.A. Is quite competent.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and find that originally, the proceedings in the matter, were initiated through the applications under section 8 subsections (4)(5) and (6) of the I.R.O., 1969 and when these applications were rejected, appeal had been filed by all the three rival groups under subsection (7) of section 8. The appeal, before the Labour Court under the aforesaid provisions, though was rejected, but the Registrar was required to hold fresh elections after the preparation of the genuine voters list. It is in process of these proceedings, that Muhammad Akbar was declared not to be a workman and the Writ Petition. No,26444 of 1998 was filed. The matter was remanded to the Registrar and thereafter, again the Registrar, passed the same order, which was challenged before the Labour Court. Thus, for all intents, and purposes, subsequent proceedings by the Registrar in holding that, Muhammad Akbar is not a workman, have its genesis in the proceedings, which had been earlier commenced on the application of the three rival groups under section 8(7) of the I.R.O. Because, proviso to subsection (2) of section, 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, provides that, no I.C.A. Shall lie if, the proceedings, out of which, the writ has arisen, provide a remedy of appeal etc. Therefore, as the order challenged in the Petition No,3390 of 2002, had arisen out of the original proceedings, in which under the law, the right of appeal was available and had also been exercised by the three rival groups, resultantly, the case is squarely covered by the proviso, as has been elaborated by the judgment reported as PLD 1984 SC 344. Therefore, we are constrained to hold that the present appeals are not competent, which are hereby dismissed.