ALL PAKISTAN SEAMEN'S WORKERS UNION through General Secretary vs PAKISTAN SEAMEN'S UNION through Secretary and others

' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.--- This petition is directed against Sindh High Court order, dated 24-8- 2006 allowing constitutional petition filed by respondent No,1 challenging the registration of petitioner-Union as Industry-wise Trade Union by respondent No,2 i,e, National Industrial Relations Commission.

2. We have heard Syed Shahenshah Hussain, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner at sufficient length whereas Mr. Muhammad Tasneem, learned Advocate Supreme Court has appeared on behalf of respondent No,1 pursuant to the notice issued by this Court.

3. Crux of the submission advanced at the Bar and on perusal of the impugned order rendered by. a Division Bench of the Sindh High Court it appears that registration of Industry-wise Trade Union within the meaning of section 22A(8)(d) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter referred as the Ordinance, 1969) was a function to be performed by National Industrial Relations Commission, which would include the Chairman and Members thereof appointed under section 22A(4) of the Ordinance, 1969. Division Bench of the High Court has expressed the view that Chairman did not enquire into the application for registration and merely entrusted it to the Deputy Registrar of the Commission, who submitted a favourable report, which was approved by the Chairman without applying his mind and endorsing "as proposed" thereon.

4. On perusal of the provisions of the Ordinance, 1969, attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the powers vested in the Commission to be exercised by the Chairman or a Bench of the Commission could not be legally delegated or entrusted to an officer of the Commission, including the Registrar of the Commission. The opinion formed by the High Court, therefore, does not suffer from any serious illegality, misconception of law or error of jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in order to re-enforce his submission that the Deputy Registrar of the Commission was fully competent to enquire into an application for registration and the Chairman having issued the Registration Certificate, registration complained of did not suffer from any illegality or want of jurisdiction relied upon Essa Cement Industries Workers' Union v.

Registrar of Trade Unions 1998 SCM R 1964. We regret to observe that this judgment is hardly attracted as it deals with the powers of Registrar, Trade Union with regard to registration of a Trade Union under the provisions of section 8 of the Ordinance, 1969, which is entirely distinct and distinguishable from the provisions of section 22A(8)(d) of the Ordinance.

5. Conversely, Mr. Muhammad Tasneem, learned Advocate Supreme Court for respondent No,1 has rightly referred to the provisions contained in section 22B(2)(b) of the Ordinance, 1969, which lays down that for the purpose of the functions of the Commission, the Chairman shall constitute as many other Benches of the Commission consisting of one or more Members of the Commission as he may deem fit. He has also referred to clause (b) of subsection (3) of the above said provision, stipulating, inter alia, that in relation to Industry-wise Trade Union etc. Any reference to "Registrar", "Labour Court", or, as the case may be, "Tribunal" shall be deemed to be a reference to the appropriate Bench of the Commission to which such functions are assigned. This provision once again clarifies and strengthens the view taken by the High Court, which, in our considered view, does not admit of any interference.

6. For the aforesaid facts, circumstances and reasons, we are of the view that no question of law of public importance is raised in this petition, which is devoid of any substance. Resultantly, petition is dismissed and .