2010 PLP 163 (PLC)

CH. ASAD RAZA (MEMBER).

Briefly the facts are that the petitioners/appellants Nos.1 to 4 are employed with United Bank Limited as Officers Grade-III whereas petitioner/appellant No.5, enjoys the status of Officer Grade-II and claiming that the nature of duties they perform, is manual and clerical, therefore they fall under the definition of workmen as given in I.R.A., 2008, that the proceedings for holding the internal election of UBL Employees and Workers Union Punjab, Islamabad, N.-W.F.P. CBU are pending before the learned Registrar/Authorized Officer, that the appellants being the workers, filed an application for allowing them to participate in the proceedings and election of the aforesaid union but, the Registrar/Authorized Officer rejected their application summarily and removed the names of the appellants from the list of voters, therefore, being aggrieved of the order they filed an Application bearing No.7A(84) of 2009 before the learned Chairman/RITU of the Commission, who entertained the matter and issued notices to the management of the UBL, but after an inquiry, particularly on the subject of the duties the appellants perform, to evaluate whether they are workmen or not, learned Chairman of the Commission declined to stay the election proceedings vide his order, dated 2-9-2009 (Annexure "B" on the record of the case file).

2. The legal validity of the aforesaid order has been called into question on the grounds that the respondent No.2, namely the Registrar/Authorized Officer has fixed the date for holding election of the Union on 3-10-2009, and on the other hand, the respondent No.1 has adjourned the matter for about one month after declining to stay the election proceedings, and in that situation, if the appellants are ultimately declared workmen, they will not be able to contest the election of the Union, and on the other hand, have not declared as "workmen", there will be no reasonable time to assail the order of the learned Chairman in the Appellate Court, and in both the situations, the right of the appellants are likely to be hampered with and lost technically, that the respondent No.1 has adjourned the case to 30-9-2009, therefore, the whole election proceedings are liable to be stayed for the interest of justice, that it is a legal vested right of the appellant to be declared as workmen by virtue the duties they perform, hence this appeal with the prayer that both the respondents be directed not to hold the election of the union till the decision of the application/Case No.7A(84) of 2009 pending before the" respondent No.1 and further that the election proceedings being conducted by the respondent No.2 be stayed in the meanwhile and also the schedule thereof be suspending.

3. The learned Chairman of the Commission (respondent No.1) passed the impugned order, dated 2-9-2009 which for convenience of all concern is reproduced below:

"Order.

Messrs Nazar Abbas, Officer Grade-III, UBL Rejina Tehsil and District Toba Tek Singh, Muhammad Shafique Khan, Officer Grade-III, UBL Kotwali Road Branch Faisalabad, Muhammad Ahmed Supervisor, Officer Grade-II, UBL Dichkot Road Faisalabad, Mazhar Iqbal Saiyal Officer Grade-II, UBL Jhawarian Tehsil Shahpur District Sargodha and Zulfiqar Hussain Awan Officer Grade-III, UBL Fatima Jinnah Road Sargodha have moved the present application with the grievance that the Authorized Officer who is supervising election of the union had removed the names of the applicants from the list of voters on the ground that they are not workmen. The petitioners are present in Court and they stated that they are workmen and do not fall in the definition of employer. In order to resolve the issue let a notice to respondent-Bank be issued to provide a list of duties assigned to each of the applicant so that it could be determined whether they are workmen or not Adjourned. Request for stay of election proceedings is declined for time being. To come up on 30-9-2009."

4. Today, when this appeal has been taken up for hearing by the Full Bench, none is present on behalf of the appellants in person or at Bar. However, Qazi Ahmed Naeem Qureshi, the learned Advocate for the appellants, has sent an application for adjournment of the instant appeal for his own engagement before the Honourable Lahore High Court Rawalpindi Bench Rawalpindi and proposed to club this case file with another titled as "Syed Nazar Abbas and others v. Chairman/RITU and others", fixed for 28-11-2009 but with a desire to accelerate the date for 24-11-2009. At the very start of the hearing the learned counsel for the intervener respondent i.e. UBL, Mr. Faisal Mehmood Ghani, learned counsel pointed out that the application in which the impugned order dated 29-9-2009 had been passed, stands disposed of on 30-9-2009, by the learned Chairman and the application of the appellants for a declaration of their status as workmen and an entitlement to participate in the election, has been turned down in totality.

5. We preferred to see the record of Appeal No.12(50) of 2009 and as we have gone through the ground of the appeal with an attentive mind and it is noted that Qazi Ahmed Naeem Qureshi, learned Advocate representing the appellants in the said appeal, had unreservedly acknowledged that the appeal in hand for hearing' has gone infructuous.

6. Whether the appellants can be defined as workmen, or not, is presently, out of the scope of this appeal and for that, the academic exercise has to be made, obviously, in Appeal No.12(5) of 2009. The impugned order dated 2-9-2009 has now merged into one passed by the learned Chairman on 30-9-2009.

7. Resultantly, for the legal aspect, that record to the file of the present appeal having gone infructuous, and so through an admission on judicial record, by the very counsel of the appellants, a seasoned Law Officer, we are of the unanimous view that further proceedings in hearing of this appeal, or an adjournment as desired, would be nothing, but a futile exercise, and wastage of the public time. Therefore, we proceed to dismiss this appeal with no order as to costs. H.B.T./20/NIRC Appeal dismissed.