2000 PLP 682 (PLC)

Muhammad Arif Rafique Sindhu for Respondents. By way of these revision petitions, has been called in question, the soundness and legality of the orders, dated 4‑3‑2000, of the learned Labour Court, Multan, dismissing the establishment's applications submitted under section 151, C.P.C. in the course of the proceedings of the grievance petitions, filed by as many as 92 persons (claiming to be workmen), under section 25‑A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Identical facts and common questions of law being involved, I would be disposing of all the 92 revision petitions above‑captioned by this single consolidated judgment.

2. The factory at the Vehari Road, Multan is stated to have been set up in the year 1.968 by the ancestors of the present proprietors. It was nationalized by Bhutto Regime in 1973 and it came under the control of the Ghee Corporation, which organization operated it from 1973 to 1992. It was sold away by the Corporation in the year 1992, to the same Group, why was originally the owner. There was sustained deficit, running into four crore rupees in four years' period. On borrowing a sum of one and a half crore rupees, the old. management, had made payment to the staff and the workers their dues in entirety, in pursuance of a settlement having been arrived at on 10‑10‑1996 between the representatives of the employers and. those of the labour union functioning as CBA (Annexure B).

3. As many as 181 employees are stated to have received their dues and left. Out of them, 92, however, having been incited or prompted by elements inimical to the proprietorship, in March, 1997, filed petitions under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969, in the Labour Court at Multan, alleging wonderful ouster from service pleading entitlement to reinstatement and claiming the back benefits. In the written statement or the reply submitted by the respondents there, the Manager and the Chief Executive, Sh. Fazal Rehman & Sons Ltd., a number of preliminary objections also were raised. Subsequently, amendment of the written statement was sought, which prayer on payment of costs of Rs.40 per case (total amount being Rs.3,680 in 92 cases) was acceded to, and the management added preliminary objection No.7, which was to the effect that registration of the. respondent‑factory having been cancelled, alongwith annulment of registration of the CBA (the Employees' Union), the petitions merited dismissal outright. An application under section 151, C.P.C. was submitted on 30‑6‑1999. The same has been dismissed by the impugned order rendered by the lower Court on 4‑3‑2000.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the establishment, revision‑petitioner before me, that preliminary objection No.7 should have been adverted o and before proceeding further the Court should have determined the question whether it had jurisdiction and could proceed with the matter and the answer being in the negative, the Court below should have taken its hands off. The contention aforesaid has not impressed the learned' Court below and it has been observed that the application under section 151, C.P.C. has been submitted, when evidence in the case is being recorded, and the only object appears to be to prolong the proceedings. It is to be borne in mind that if the contention raised by the establishment is found not to be without force, it will entail dismissal of the main petition outright, and there will be no occasion and no need to proceed further in the matter, and the proceedings as such would not be prolonged and would rather be curtailed.

5. The learned lower Court is of the view that cancellation of registration of the concern or the company has nothing to do and has no bearing on the maintainability of the grievance petition. The learned Judge of the Labour Court, however, forgets that cancellation of registration of the company manifestly means that the company of the concern has ceased to have existence and with that the CBA union has also ceased to exist and be taken to have been deregistered and locus standi of the employees to stay on in the set‑up has come to an end. It will not be disputed that the Court seized of the matter can take into consideration, and actually it is incumbent upon the Court to take judicial notice of, the changed situation and circumstances of the case, having taken place in the course of the proceedings, after institution of the case even, and the Court actually will be duty‑bound to take stock of the material developments having occurred afterwards and even the relief that emanates may have to be moulded accordingly. It has been so pronounced in PLD 1992 SC 723 (730). Article 189 of the Constitution lays' down in express terms that decision of the august Apex Court, in regard to a question of law, would be binding on all the Courts below.

6. Document Annexure B makes it clear that on as back as 1‑8‑1996 it had been agreed upon between the parties that losses having reached a limit where it had become impossible to operate the mills, its closure would be in the fitness of things, and with that end in view bilateral negotiations or parleys be undertaken. Ratification of the agreement was made on 10‑10‑1996. It was decided that the shares be sold to a party in the market at the highest offered rates and the money collected be utilized for payment of the outstanding emoluments of the workers, in the manner of full and final settlement of their dues. The employees were required to tender their resignations by 14‑10‑1996.

7. When all that materialized, and the majority of the members of the working class also staged exit, there remained no justification to keep the grievance petitions of the workers pending further.

8. Actually, services of the employees were not terminated by the employees; they themselves left the concern, so that they ceased to be workmen, no longer entitled to maintain grievance petitions or proceed with the same. Reliance in this behalf has been placed on PLD 1999 Karachi 260, PLD 1999 Lahore 177, 1999 PLC 269 (Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh) and PLD 1981 Lahore 692 (702). Provisions of section 42, Specific Relief Act too have been invoked by the learned counsel, in urging that the development aforesaid will also operate as estoppel.

9. The Registrar, Trade Unions, Multan had on 8‑5‑1997 passed an order cancelling registration of the employees' union, that was operating in obsolete set‑up. This order was rendered under section 10(3), I.R.O., 1969, and was appeal-able under section 11(a) (ibid). Circumstances have been set out and all important developments have been narrated by the Registrar in coming to the conclusion that the labour union had no legal status to exist and operate, and its registration as such was liable to cancellation. Last elections of the union had been held several. years ago in March 1995. Shabbir Butt as Chairman, Hashmat Ali as President and Saleem Lodhi as General Secretary had been elected for a period of two years. They, or some of the office‑bearers, had allegedly backed out of their solemn commitments, turned hostile towards the interests of the working class, and joined hands with the owners or the management. Two persons, who have been fighting for the cause of the workers, purportedly, are stated to be no longer on the rolls, their existence as employees having come to an end in the year 1996, and they thus have been divested of the locus standi to represent the cause of the workers. On a certain date in the past (3‑7‑2000), Mr. Muhammad Arif Rafiq Sindhu, Advocate emerged as counsel for the respondents, and he had made the Court aware of the fact that Mr. Mughees Hasan Malik, who had appeared as counsel for the workers on 12‑5‑2000 had been disengaged by them.

10. I have given my very anxious consideration to the important issue before me. The Joint Director Labour Welfare and Authorized Inspector of Factories, Multan Region, had after making a thorough inquiry cancelled the registration of the mill on 14‑5‑1998 and ordered its removal from the list of the 'registered factories', under Rule 8(1), Punjab Factories Rules, 1978 (Annexure‑F). The concern could no longer possibly retain the workers in the set‑up and could not concede in their favour any relief, sought under section 25‑A, I.R.O. It was not the cancellation of the registration of the factory that had proved to be the turning point.. It plainly meant that the factory or the concern had ceased to exist and was no longer in operation. This is a fact, so vivid, so transparent, so manifest, that I fail to follow how could it be lost sight of. Proceeding with the matter further would have put the learned Labour Court on a misdirected or a diverted track, and a bid to keep the cause alive, on the strength of surmises and conjectures only must as such have been foiled. Decision by the Court below in rejecting the establishment's application under section 151, C.P.C. and its proceeding further with the matter, oblivious of the aforesaid important developments, would tantamount to exercise of its jurisdiction with illegality and material irregularity, attaching for interference therewith revisional jurisdiction of this Court. I accept the revision petitions, with of course no order as to costs. The grievance petitions all stand dismissed. H.B.T./16/P(Lab. Trib.) Revision petition accepted.