1988 PLP 900 (PLC)

Through this petition the petitioner has made grievance against the conduct of the first round of the referendum, which was held by the respondent No. 1 between the petitioner and other Unions, including respondents Nos. 2 to

6. The contention of Mr. M.L. Shahani, learned counsel for the petitioner mainly is that originally in a pre‑referendum meeting held on 20‑12‑1987 by the respondent No. 1 where all the contesting unions had participated, it had been decided that only such workers who were in possession of medical cards issued by the Karachi Water and Sewerage Board would be allowed to participate in referendum, but later at the first round of the referendum which was held on 13‑1‑1988, the arrangement earlier agreed to was not resorted to by the Polling officer but different arrangement was resorted to, allowing only workers who held the identity cards to take part at the referendum. This, according to the learned counsel, has caused prejudice to the petitioner and was violative of the mode of conduct of the referendum mutually agreed by the parties concerned. The second contention of Mr. Shahani is that four of the votes cast at the referendum had been illegally invalidated by the Polling Officer and the same had been cast in favour of the petitioner union. On 31‑1‑1988 when this petition came up for Katcha Peshi, pre admission notice was ordered to be issued to the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3, who would have been mainly interested in contesting the petition. Respondent No. 1 had also been directed to place the disputed ballot papers before this Court at the request of the petitioner and the same have now been placed before the Court. I have heard Mr. M.L. Shahani, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mushir Alam, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and Ch. Rashid Ahmed, learned counsel for respondent No.

3. Turning to the first contention of Mr. Shahani, as pointed out above, the argument is that the Polling Officer had admittedly made a departure from the earlier arrangement which had been arrived at with consent of all the representatives of the unions concerned by allowing the voters to cast their votes by showing their Identity Card instead of the Medical Cards. Although it has not been denied by the respondent No. 1 that subsequently the workers were allowed to take part in the referendum by showing their Identity Cards instead of Medical Cards, but admittedly, the arrangement was departed from by the Polling Officer at the request of all the representatives of the unions concerned as majority of the voters were not in possession of the Medical Cards and they would have been deprived of their right to take part in the referendum. It is also an admitted position that later when an objection was raised by the President of the Karachi Water and Sewerage Board Peoples Labour Union, respondent No. 2, the original arrangement of casting votes by showing of Medical Cards was again resorted to The argument of Mr. Shahani, therefore, in the alternative is that at least subsequent alteration in the mode of the referendum had caused prejudice to the petitioner union. However, I do not find force in both the contentions. As far as the first argument is concerned, it was at the request of all the representatives of the contesting parties present at the referendum, which also included they, representative of the petitioner that the arrangement was changed. It may be pointed out that the purpose of allowing the workers to cast their votes by show of their Medical Cards or, as the case may be, by Identity Cards, was that bogus votes may not be cast at the referendum and only genuine voters may be allowed to participate thereat. Consequently, if the original arrangement was departed from with the consent of all the contesting parties, the contention of the counsel that the same had caused prejudice to the petitioner cannot be accepted. I also do not find force in the second contention of the counsel, because, it has not been shown by the petitioner in the memorandum of the petition that any of his voters had been deprived of his right to take part at the referendum. The arguments of Mr. Shahani, therefore, cannot be accepted. The next contention of Mr. Shahani is that four votes which had been cast in favour of the petitioner had been erroneously invalidated by the Polling Officer. Such votes, according to the petitioner, had been cast at Polling Bootle Nos. 12, 13 and

28. As I have already pointed out above, at the request of the petitioner, respondent No. 1 was directed to produce the disputed ballot papers before this Court which have been produced by him today. The ballot papers which are disputed were opened and perused in presence of the parties concerned. On one of the ballot papers, the cross‑mark had been put by the voter on the reverse of the ballot paper and, therefore, the vote was not counted ink favour of the petitioner. On two of the ballot papers the marks had been put in the middle of the two columns, one containing the symbol of a Lion which been, allotted to the petitioner and the other containing the symbol of Candle. The marks on the two.ballot papers were put in such a manner that the same covered both the symbols equally. Although the contention of the petitioner is that the symbol of the Lion is mainly covered by the mark but I do not agree with such contention as the mark appears to be clearly divided between the two columns and in my opinion the votes have rightly been invalidated by the Polling Officer and the same applies to the vote cast on the reverse of the ballot paper. There is' yet another vote which has been invalidated by the Polling Officer as instead of the cross‑mark the voter has put bis Thumb‑Impression on the ballot‑paper in the I symbol allotted to the petitioner. This ballot‑paper had also been invalidated by the Polling Officer although, in my opinion, wrongly, because, the intention of the voter was clearly to cast his vote in favour of the petitioner. Reference in this respect may be made to P L D 1987 S C

213. Moreover, Mr. Shahani has pointed out that a similar vote cast in favour of respondent No. 3 was accepted by the Polling Officer. Be that as it may, but the difference between the petitioner an the respondent No. 3, which is the union securing second position at the firs round of the referendum, is of three votes. Consequently, even if one of the vote invalidated by the Polling Officer is regarded as valid, still the same cannot alter the position, because, the petitioner would still be kept out of the contest of the Final round. No other ground has been urged by the petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed in limine. Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 25 and 26 of1988 have also become in fructuous in view of the order passed above and the same also stand dismissed. M.Y.H./K‑84/K Petition dismissed.