1989 PLP 227 (PLC)

‑‑‑Ss. 8,(7) & 38(3‑a)‑‑Election of office‑bearers of trade union‑‑Labour Court could direct holding of election under supervision of Registrar only in case of dispute‑‑Dispute between parties related to previous election period which had already expired‑‑Labour Court issuing direction to Registrar for holding election for new term/ year under his supervision‑‑Issuance of such direction for electron for new year for which no dispute existed, held, was beyond jurisdiction of Labour Court‑‑Direction about holding new union election under supervision of Registrar was set aside in revision by Appellate Tribunal. Mohammad Zaman Oureshi for Petitioners. MA. Khadim for Respondents. Date of hearing: 21st September, 1987. This is a revision challenging the order dated 9‑8‑1987, recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 3, Lahore at Ferozewala whereby direction has been issued to the Registrar for holding the election for the new year i.e. 1987‑88 under his supervision.

2. This is an admitted fact that the period for which election was held for the year 1986‑87 expired in April, 1987 when the appeal before the learned lower appellate Court was pending. However, the period had not yet expired when the appeal was lodged. The learned lower Court has in the impugned order observed that the period for which office‑holders had been elected for the year 1986‑87 had expired. The dispute between the parties was about the election held for the year 1986‑87 and as no election as yet has been held for the new year i.e. 1987‑88 it is difficult to say that any dispute exists between the parties. It was, therefore, beyond the jurisdiction of the learned lower Court to direct that election for the new year also be held under the supervision of the Registrar. According to section 8(7) the Court can direct the holding of the election under the supervision of the Registrar if there exists any dispute. The dispute was about the previous election period of which has already expired. This is not necessary that illegality if any or highhandedness if any committed by any of the parties during the election held for the year 1986‑87 would in all probabilities be repeated in the election for the new year. The President of respondent No. 2 union has said that after 11‑00 a.m. the Registrar did not allow any voter to cast vote but the record of the Registrar shows that the ballot boxes were lifted and election was closed at 12‑00 noon. Originally the period of voting was fixed from 9‑00 a.m. to 11‑00 a.m. but the polling actually started at 10‑00 a.m., because for the appointment of polling agents a dispute had arisen and it was alleged that respondent No. 2 union wanted to appoint outsiders as polling agents and the employer had refused to allow the outsiders to enter the premises. Since polling started late the Registrar was justified in continuing the election upto 12‑00 noon and it cannot be said that any violation of constitution of the union was committed. No doubt certain affidavits are on the file of the learned lower Court to the effect that they were not allowed to cast vote but no such position can be found in the grounds of the appeal, therefore., whatever is mentioned in the said affidavits appears to be after thought.

3. As no dispute exists at present about the election for a new year the B direction of the learned lower Court to the Registrar to hold the election under his supervision is not sustainable and is set aside. The revision stands accepted. A.E./422/Lb. P. Revision accepted.