1994 PLP 196 (PLC)

S.M. Yaqoob for Respondent No. 1: Saleem Raza, Representative for Respondent No. 2. Khalid Imran, Assistant Law Officer for Respondent No. 3. Date of hearing: 9th January, 1994. Arguments of all the Advocates/representatives for all the parties on stay application were heard on 10‑1‑1994. On 13‑12‑1993 petitioner filed the case under section 22‑A(8)(g) of the IRO, 1969 alleging unfair labour practice against the respondents in influencing the balloting provided for in section 22, ibid. On the same day an application for prohibitory order under Regulation 32(2)(c) was also filed requesting to direct the respondent No. 3 not to announce final result of referendum held on 8‑12‑1993 and on which ad interim order was passed with notice to respondents. 2. Briefly the case of the petitioner is that it is registered labour union having been CBA since 1989 and that its term expired in December, 1992 within the establishment of respondent No. 1 which employs about 133 workers. It is alleged that respondent No. 2 is the pocket union of respondent No. 1 and that on account of their trade union activities respondent No. 1 has turned hostile against the petitioner union since 1990. It is alleged that management has fabricated false resignations of its union officers and other workers against which the said workers have refuted in. In any case the unions have filed their voters list and so the management, but respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have used force and manipulations in influencing the balloting of referendum in question by providing pre‑stamped ballot papers to the workers with the result that respondent No. 3 has also failed to conduct the proceedings of referendum impartially; hence the case with the prayer to hold the referendum as void, that the rights of petitioner have been violated, to direct respondent No. 3 not to issue CBA certificate to respondent No. 2 and to direct respondent No. 1 to make arrangements for fresh polls. 3. In the application for interim prohibitory order above facts and grounds have been adopted and is supported by affidavit of Muhammad Ali, General Secretary‑of the petitioner. Whereas respondent No. 1 has filed comments duly verified by their Personnel Officer whereby they have denied all the allegations of unfair labour practice and have filed original affidavits of workers in denial of refuting of their resignations (photo copy) filed by the petitioners as forged. In this way remaining two respondents have also filed their comments/counter‑affidavit denying all the allegations of unfair labour practice. The learned Advocates/representatives of all the parties submitted their arguments on the lines mentioned above. 4. The allegation of unfair labour practice levelled by the petitioners falls within the definition given under section 15(1)(g) of the IRO and it has been specifically pleaded and argued that the respondent No. 1 provided pre- stamped ballot papers to the voters of respondent No. 2 said to be pocket union. However, as mentioned above this allegation has been denied and there is no other prima facie independent evidence to lend support to the allegation of petitioner. Over and above the respondent No. 3 has filed the office file with regard to referendum in question with contains Forms M, N, O and P bearing original signatures of Agent of the petitioner. The said forms are maintained under Rules 20, 25 and 26 of Sindh Industrial Relations Rules, 1973. Form `M' is in respect of the certificate that the ballot‑box was shown empty to the satisfaction of the Polling Officer before commencement of the polling, and Form `N' i.5 the certificate that the ballot‑box was sealed in presence of Polling Agents. Form `O' is certificate that the ballot‑box was sealed. And, Form `P' is certificate that the votes were counted in presence of the polling agents. None of those forms bear any protest from the side of the petitioner which can lend support to the allegation of unfair labour practice levelled through main case. Under the circumstances it is held that the petitioner has failed to make out prima facie case for confirmation of the ad interim order and therefore his application for interim prohibitory order is hereby dismissed with the result that the ad interim order passed on 13‑12‑1993 also stands recalled. For the above reasons the main petition is also hereby dismissed. H.B.T./202/N.I.R.C. Petition dismissed.