Ajmal Farooq Zia VS Registrar Trade Unions (NIRC & another)

FORM NO.HCTD/C

JUDGMENT SHEET

IN THE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT,

ISIAMABAD

W.P.No.1337 120t2

Ajmal Farooq Zia

VS.

Registrar Trade Unions, Islamabad.

Date of hearing t2.tL.20L2

Petitioner by Mushtaq Hussain Bhatti, Advocate.

Respondents by Barrister Afzal Hussain.

NOOR-UL-HAO N. OURESHI J.- The respondent No,t

applied for registration to the Registrar Trade Union under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 2011 on 15.2.20t2. The All Pakistan ZTBL Officers Association (Patriots) was registered by respondent No.1 vide letter dated 06.5.20t2 said to have registered the Trade Union under IRO 2011. The petitioner was shown as one of its members in the application moved for registration which was vehemently controvefted as the name of petitioner was included in the list of members surreptitiously without his knowledge and consent. The said letter of registration dated 06.5.2012 was assailed mainly on the ground mentioned below:

IRO 2011 was promulgated by the President of Pakistan on t}J.z}tt for LzO days. Subsequently, it was extended affiux of statutory period an. National Assembly had extended its ft operation for furthei'l2b days up to L7.3.20t2. The Bill for IRA was successfully passed by senate and National Assembly and President accorded assent on L4.3.2OLZ when the said Act of 20t2 was promulgated. It is further contended that IRO 2011 since was not

Writ oetition No.1337 of 2012

repealed by the Act of 20t2, therefore, proceedings commenced under IRA 2012 after 14.3.20t2 were rendered illegal, void ab initio in the eye of law. It is also one of the point urged in terms of section 88 of IRA 20t2, the IRA 2008 having been repealed by virtue of section 87(3), therefore, proceedings commenced or other actions taken under the repealed Act shall be deemed to have been done, made, issued, appointed, constituted, given, or taken under the corresponding provision of the Act. In the absence of any saving clause in section 88 of IRA 2012, the IRO 2011 be treaded as sunset legislation which came to end by its own force when IRA 2012 was promulgated. Similar obseruation made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in CP No.24120L1 that IRA 2008 came to end by its on force on 30.4.2012 and all the proceedings held were nullity in the eye of law. Further it is argued that IRO 2011 has not been repealed by an Act of Parliament it come to an end by the operation of constitutional constraint, therefore, provisions of section 6 of General Clauses Act can not be pressed into seruice to indemniff proceedings initiated under IRO, 2011. Therefore, the application for registration was made by respondent No.2 to respondent No'1 on L5.2.20t2 when IRO 2011 was operative. The apOlications remained under process till 06.4.2012 when the verification of registration was issued w.e.f O5.4.2OLZ same since came to an end on L4.3.20t2 when the IRA 2012 was promulgated. Therefore, subsequent action on that No.1 is without lawful authoritY.

application initiated bY fio"n' Z. Learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the petitioner has deliberately suppressed the material facts thereby misguiding this couft. Hence, approached by the petitioner is un clean hands. Therefore, petitioner is disentitled for relief claim under Afticle constitution. It is atleged that Mr.Ajmal Faroo q ziaoc-I, ZTBL, is of

J

Writ oetition No.1337 of 2012

acting on the behest of the Association of ZTBL Officers who in league with the management intends to hinder the lawful functioning of the respondent namely All Pakistan ZTBL Officers Association (PATRIOTS).

Therefore, on clear question mark on the bona-fide of petitioner, petition is liable to be dismissed. It is further alleged that Ajmal Farooq Zia fraudulently shown himself to be a member of the answering respondent, whereas he never paid registration fee or membership fee or even formal/informal attended nor he has been declared member by the respondent association at any forum including NIRC. In this regard, it is contended that petitioner failed to place any documentary evidence in suppoft of his membership, therefore, being self proclaimed member of the respondent association has no locus-standi to invoke constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. The respondent No.2 after completing due process applied for registration to respondent No.l, Same was duly registered under Industrial Relation Act, 2012 as evident from the ceftificate itself. Therefore, petition lacks such merits. It is also contended that the remedy of appeal was available under section 12 of Industrial Relations Ac., 20L2 to the petitioner, therefore, availing writ jurisdiction under these circumstances is a misguidance. Likewise, the petitioner has failed to identiff any infringement of his Iegal rights yet he has not furnished any proof with regard to his membership, as such he can not claim any relief, as cause of action even lacking. The petition is therefore, liable to be disrfeO. It is alleged that the questions raised in petition requires leading of "Pro & Contrary" evidence. Therefore, factual controversy can not be resolved in the constitutionaljurisdiction.

3.Learned counsel for the petitioner in rebuttal admitted such ct that though the right of appeal is available but yet the Commission been constituted, therefore, there is no way remained with the ^rnot

Writ oetition No.1337 of 2012

petitioner except to seek such relief by invoking constitutional jurisdiction.

4.Arguments heard, record pursued.

5.Without considering other factual or legal grounds raised, I would like to concentrate upon such aspect as admitted by learned counse! for the petitioner that right of appeal is provided by section L2 of rRA 2012.

6.So far the concern of constitution of commission as provided by section 53 which consists of 10 members including Chairman, does not take away the right of petitioner to prefer appea!.

preferring appeal only for the reason of non-constitution of commission for the period which to is concealment of the fact is not permissible.

Such concealment of fact on the paft of petitioner besides the fact elaborated that, petitioner could not establish any proof with regard to membership as such no locus-standi to prefer writ petition.

7.In view of above enumerated position, the petitioner has failed to make out any case seeking relief in the instant petition, therefore, I am persuaded to decide the instant writ petition on two legal grounds raised by learned counsel for the respondents. For both the grounds raised/discussed above, learned counsel for the petitioner could not ptausibly explain his position, hence, I am of the considered view that instant writ petition lacks merits, same is hereby dismissed.

(NOOR-U . QURESHI)

J DGE

Uploaded By : Engr. Umer Rasheed Dar