1989 PLP 231 (PLC)

Muhammad Zaman Oureshi for Petitioners. Asghar Ali Gill for Respondent

1. Abdul Majid for Respondents Nos. 2 to

15. Date of hearing: 15th August 198

7. This is a revision reporting that the order dated 14th July, 1987 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 5, Faisalabad without jurisdiction and of no legal effect.

2. The facts are that there are three groups in AI‑Fatah Mazdoor Union, Shams Textile Mills Limited, Chiniot. One is headed by Rana Mohammad Saleem who is General Secretary. The petitioner group held elections of the office holders of the union on 20‑3‑1987 and sent papers on 24‑3‑1987 to the Registrar for approval. The group headed by respondent No. 2 is alleged to have held elections on 11‑3‑1987 and sent the papers for approval to the Registrar on 22‑3‑1987. The third group is alleged to have held elections on 30‑4‑1987 and sent papers to the Registrar for approval on 24‑5‑1987. The Registrar fixed 29‑4‑1987 as the date for holding inquiry but adjourned it on the plea that the workers had to make preparations for celebrating May 1‑Jay which occurs on first of May of every year. On 4‑5‑1987 Khaliq Naseem, respondent No. 2 brought a petition to the Registrar to the effect that the elections of office holders of his group were bogus. The Registrar summoned all the groups to appear before him on 12‑5‑1987, as is manifest from the record of the Registrar. According to the said record, evidence was recorded on 12‑5‑1987 but before the Registrar could give any decision, respondent No. 2 group made an application under section 8(7) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 to the Labour Court on 16‑5‑1987 for the setting aside of the elections of office holders held by the petitioner group on the ground that the proceedings of elections were bogus.

3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that during the pendency of the proceedings before the Registrar for approval or disapproval of the change in the office holders, the Labour Court lacks jurisdiction to interfere and that the interference by the Labour Court amounts to usurping the right of the Registrar given to him by subsection (5) of section 8 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. He has also argued that an application under section 8(7) can be moved to the Labour Court only if a trade union is aggrieved by the A refusal of the Registrar to register the change. The argument has no force. If the Registrar sleeps over the matter and does not promptly decide the dispute, an application may be made under section 8(7) provided there is a dispute in relation to the change of office holders. Since the elections of the office holders had been held by all the three groups, it is evident that there was existing a dispute in relation to the change of office‑bearers. The reason that the workers had to make preparations for celebrating May Day an first of May was not a sufficient ground to adjourn the inquiry fixed on 29‑4‑1987. May Day was not declared abruptly by the Government but on first of May of every year May Day is observed, therefore, the workers had ample time to make preparations if at all they were necessary. The Registrar could have changed the date from 29‑4‑1987 to some earlier date. There are given two conditions m subsection (7) of section 8 for going to the Labour Court. One is that there should be a dispute m relation to the change of office‑bearers. Since admittedly the elections of office holders had been held by the various groups, it is apparent, as mentioned above, that a dispute had come into existence, I also do not find any force in the argument of the learned counsel that the learned lower Court wrongly directed the Registrar to hold elections under his supervision. The line of his argument is that the Registrar should have been directed to decide the matter of approval or disapproval of the elections of office holders held by the three groups. Since subsection (7) authorises the Labour Court to direct the Registrar to hold elections under his supervision, the direction issued by the learned lower Court cannot be said to be suffering from any legal infirmity. In cases where there are several groups and there is a dispute of change of office‑bearers, the proper course is to direct the Registrar to hold re‑election among the said groups. However, the learned lower Court was bound to go through the record of an inquiry held by the Registrar. The impugned order reveals that the learned lower Court did not do so as in the judgment there is no discussion of the evidence or the material which was brought before the Registrar.

4. As a result of the discussions made above, the revision is partly accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, it is directed f to re‑decide the petition brought under section 8(7) in the light of the observations made above. A.E./400/Lb. P. Revision partly accepted.