1999 PLP 168 (PLC)

The facts of the case are that Rana Mubarak Ali, claiming himself to be the President of WAPDA Mazdoor Union, registered, filed an application under section 22‑A(8)(g) read with section 22‑A(9)(a) and section 8(7) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, stating that he was employed as a Storekeeper and holding the office of the union for the last 10 years. He was again elected for two years on 24‑12‑1994. Respondents 2 and 3 did not participate in the said elections. However, they prepared bogus proceedings and sent them to respondent No.

1. Respondent No. l entertained the bogus proceedings due to political pressure and the action on his part was illegal. It was prayed that respondent No. l be directed not to accept the bogus proceedings of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and not to commit further unfair labour practice.

2. Notice of the petition was given to the respondents. Respondents INos.2 and 3 filed written comments. Learned Member seized of the case, directed the Registrar, Trade Unions, Sargodha, to hold an enquiry into the matter and send a report. Accordingly, an enquiry into the matter was held and a report was sent and on the basis of the said report, the learned Member vide order dated 15‑2‑1995, directed the Registrar, Trade Unions, Faisalabad to hold elections of the union within ten days.

3. Rana Mubrarak Ali, being aggrieved of that order, has preferred the present appeal praying that the impugned order be set aside. The learned counsel for the appellant firstly contended that as Writ Petition No. 10968 of 1995 was pending in the High Court, wherein the admitting order of the appeal dated 12‑4‑1995, was suspended, the appeal could not be decided on merits by this Bench. He further urged that another Writ Petition No.8107 of 1995 was filed in the High Court against the impugned order, which was also admitted and the orders of the Single Bench were suspended. Further, Registrar (respondent No. l) had fixed 3‑9‑1995 as the date for the new elections of the union and that order was also suspended by the High Court vide order dated 5‑9‑1995.

4. It was next contended that the elections held by the union on 18‑2‑1993 were approved by the Registrar on 3‑3‑1993 and that term was to expire on 18‑2‑1995. However, upon a letter written on 15‑12‑1994, the appellant issued fresh election schedule on 24‑12‑1994 and accordingly held the elections of the union and sent them for approval to the Registrar. Respondents Nos.2 and 3 also fabricated fictitious proceedings of the elections of the union and sent them to the Registrar of Trade Unions for approval. Therefore, the above petition was filed before the Commission to direct respondent No.1 not to approve those proceedings. The learned Member, therefore, had no jurisdiction to order fresh election to a local Registrar.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent, at the very outset urged that according to the report submitted by the Registrar to the learned Member, it was clearly mentioned that the proceedings of elections sent by both the groups of the same union, were rejected vide order dated 8‑2‑1995 and the concerned groups were duly informed. As such, the petition filed by the appellant had become infructuous. Likewise, the instant appeal is liable to be dismissed as having become infructuous. It was next contended that there was no stay by the learned High Court restraining the Full Bench from deciding the appeal. It was further added that the petition as well as appeal were filed by the appellant to prolong his tenure and to avoid elections. The petition was not maintainable, as the matter was of a local nature, and the dispute could be raised before the concerned Labour Court under section 8(7) of the I.R.O., 1969. It was lastly submitted that the tenure of office of two years has already expired and the new elections had become due in 1995, even according to the assertions of the appellant himself. In order to resolve the dispute once for all between the two groups, it was correctly directed, by learned Single Bench that the elections be held under the supervision of the Registrar of Trade Unions.

6. We have considered the arguments and gone through the record. Suffice it to say, under the directions of the learned Member, N.I.R.C., the Registrar, Trade Unions, Sargodha deputed an Inquiry Officer to hold the enquiry and a report was submitted to him. On the basis of the said report, vide order dated 8‑2‑1995, the Registrar, rejected the election proceedings of both the groups and they were informed accordingly. That report along-with comments of the Registrar was placed on the Lower Court's file. Thus, the petition filed by the appellant had borne fruit and should have been disposed of as having fructified. Instead, the learned Member, wrongly directed the Registrar; Trade Unions to hold fresh elections. In fact, the tenure of disputed elections also expired on 18‑2‑1995.

7. In view of the above, we are inclined to modify the impugned order to the extent that the main petition filed by the appellant/petitioner stands disposed of as having fructified. Resultantly, the appeal is also dismissed as being infructuous. The interim order dated 12‑4‑1995 is, therefore, recalled. H.B.T./317/Lb‑/N‑I‑R.C???????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Order accordingly.