2010 PLP 477 (PLC)

ABDUL HAFEEZ CHEEMA (MEMBER).

This revision petition impugns the order, dated 12-4-2010 and 14-4-2010 passed by the learned Punjab Labour Court No.2, Lahore whereby the learned Labour Court declined to summon the record of the Registrar and so also refused to issue stay order against the respondents in the application under section 50 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2008.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that the revision petitioner owns two factories; one is Rustam Sohrab Cycle Factory and the other is Rustam Sohrab Motorcycle Factory at Shandara. Both these establishments have separate legal status and entity under the Factories Act. There are three registered trade unions in the Cycle Factory and respondent No.2 is one of them. There is however, no trade union in tile motorcycle factory. The respondent No.2 union applied to the Registrar (respondent No.l) for holding a referendum to determine C.B.A. in the Cycle Factory and the proceedings conducted by the Registrar were allegedly violative of the statutory requirements and thus ab initio void.

3. In this background the appellant was obliged to file an application under section 50 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2008 with an application for the grant of stay and another similar application for summoning of the record of the Registrar. The learned Labour Court vide order, dated 12-4-2010 issued notices to the respondents for 26-4-2010 but declined to give stay order. On 14-4-2010 the learned Labour Court expressed its view that the matter had already been settled in the Writ Petition No.2018 of 2008 filed by the petitioner establishment and as such interference of the Labour Court in such matter would be in contravention of the order passed by the learned High Court.

4. The revision petitioner has challenged this order on the ground that the Labour Court has failed to appreciate that the Registrar (respondent No.1) had no mandate to approve the office-bearers of the respondent No.2 union which was headed by Ch. Altaf Hussain who is admittedly a convicted person in view of the bar contained in section 12(2) read with section 7 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2008, and secondly it was pointed out that the respondent No.2 had inducted two workers of motorcycle factory into the Executive Body which was patently illegal as the motorcycle factory was an independent establishment with independent status and their employees had no right to vote in the union referendum of the cycle factory.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that in writ petition there was an undertaking given by the counsel for respondent No.2 that Ch. Altaf Hussain shall never take part in the referendum and if he will do so the entire process will be a nullity. After this assurance the respondent should have ensured that Ch. Altaf Hussain is not allowed to participate in the referendum in any manner which consequently would render the elections as null and void.

6. As far the two employees from motorcycle factory the objection appears to be without any force inasmuch as they can be inducted in the Executive Body, as outsiders within the permissible limit of 25%.

7. Arguments have been heard and the available record has been perused.

8. While opposing the relief claimed in the writ petition indicated above, learned counsel for the respondent union had extended the following assurance:

"(3) On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent-Union namely, Mr. M.A. Hamid Awan, Advocate, categorically stated that so far the question of a convicted person, Ch. Altaf Hussain's contesting election is concerned, he has already resigned from the office on 17-2-2008 and as such he is no more concerned with the referendum or any election whatsoever. He specifically states that if Ch. Altaf Hussain participates in the said referendum then of course the referendum can be termed as nullity in the eye of law."

9. In view of this assurance now it is bounden duty of the respondents Nos. 1 and, 2 that arrangements may be made in such a way that Ch. Altaf Hussain who is admittedly a convicted person does not take part in the referendum directly or indirectly. The revision petition is, therefore, disposed of in the above terms leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

10. Let the parties to appear before the learned Labour Court No.2, Lahore on 17-6-2010. Record shall be sent back to the Labour Court No.2, Lahore forthwith. H.B.T./10/PLT Order accordingly.