I.S. Tiwana, J. - (1.) THIS petition has been filed on behalf of Markfed to impunge the order of the Labour Court dated April 30, 1990, - -vide which two preliminary issues in the litigation pending between the parties have been disposed of. An objection has been taken on behalf of Respondent with regard to the maintainability of this petition on the ground that at no stage the Markfed decided to impugne the said order of the Labour Court and Law Officer through whom this petition has been filed was not competent to take such a decision and to maintain this petition.
(2.) TO meet the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the Respondent. Mr. Chopra the learned Counsel for the Petitioner refers to bye -law 27 of the Bye -laws framed by the above noted federation; the relevant part where of is as under: The Managing Director of the Federation shall have the following powers and duties: (viii) to sue and be sued in the name and on behalf of the Federation when authorised to do so by the Executive Committee. Concededly the Executive Committee is constituted by the Board of Directors under Bye -law 23, which says that one of the duties of the Board of Directors shall be to appoint an Executive Committee and an Administrative Committee. The learned Counsel is not in a position to refer to any decision or resolution of the Executive Committee authorising the Managing Director, much less the Law Officer through whom this petition has been filed to impugne the order in question. It, therefore, is patent that at no stage any competent authority took the decision to challenge the impugned order of the Labour Court before this Court. I am, therefore, of the considered view that the present petition is not maintainable and the same is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.;