1998 PLP 260 (PLC)

Rana Abdul Hamid Talib for Petitioner. Anwar Hussain Butt, Senior Clerk for Respondent No.

1. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in person. Date of hearing: 18th December, 1996. By way of the present revision petition has been called in question the validity/soundness of an order dated 28-7-1996, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore; allowing an application of Liaqat Ali Malik and Farhat Ali Khan, respondents Nos. 2 and 3, for becoming parties to the proceedings of an appeal filed under section 8(7), Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, by Mian Waris Ali, Registrar of the Trade Unions, Lahore Region having originally been arrayed as the only respondent

2. According to Waris Ali, he alone could bring under challenge the Registrar's order dated 21)-2-1996, whereby the proceedings of an amendment having been made in the constitution of the union, extending the term of office-bearers from one year to two years, were not approved. Learned counsel for the revision-petitioner, appellant before the Labour Court, has placed reliance on PLJ 1982 Karachi

414. In the said ruling, however, it has been held that remedy respecting Registrar's refusal to notify or approve an alteration in the Constitution or a change of office-bearers of a union, would be available to the aggrieved trade union and not to a group of newly-elected office-bearers. The authority, I must say, is being misconstrued by the petitioner/his counsel. Mian Waris Ali claims to be the President of PAD&SC Headquarters Employees Union, having originally been elected for a year, and having extended his term to two years. The Registrar had refused to concur; and as an aggrieved person, Waris Ali had approached the Labour Court in the matter. His appeal filed under section 8(7) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 may be treated as competent; but the submission made by those having newly been elected as office-bearers of the union, on expiry of term of one year, would be a different thing. What they urge is that without their impleadment in the proceedings, correct state of affairs may not be brought to the notice of the Labour Court and an adverse order by the Labour Court would directly affect their status. They claim to have (amongst others) been elected respectively as President and General Secretary of the union for the next term. Mian Waris Ali, however, refused to recognise them.

3. Annual elections, having been held on 11-1-1995, for one year, the next election was due in January, 1996. Mian Waris Ali, however, with unholy intentions, and with a view to foist himself alongwith his hirelings, on the set up, had refused to take steps for the fresh election, and actually in May, 1995 he allegedly fabricated the proceedings, converting the term of office-bearers to two years instead of one year. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 lodged complaints with the Registrar in October, 1995 and they also requested the Registrar to see to it that the elections were held as per schedule. The Registrar rejected the proceedings dated 2-5-1995 and asked the petitioner to declare the schedule of elections of the union for the year 1996. The petitioner, however, did not respond, as he had lost the support of the majority of the workers.

4. Synopsis of the written arguments submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents, available on the file of the revision petition, makes it abundantly clear that Mian Waris Ali, petitioner, on one hand, and Liaqat Ali Malik and Farhat Ali Khan, respondents Nos. 2 and 3, on the other, have been tagged in litigation, before the N.I.R.C., as also the Honourable High Court, both forums having been approached twice. By no stretch of imagination, as such, it can be urged by the revision-petitioner that respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are not necessary, not even proper patties to the proceedings before the Labour Court. In obedience to the direction of the Labour Court, Liaqat Ali and Farhat Ali, have already been arrayed as respondents Nos. 2 and

3. Election for the year 1997 is due in January; but the litigation has hampered the process and the exercise of fresh elections will obviously be held up. According to respondents Nos. 2 and 3, the petitioner is interested in delaying the process, which eventuality, I feel, would be in nobody's interests. I have no doubt in my mind that Liaqat Ali and Farhat Ali are necessary parties; and the learned lower Court in ordering their impleadment has committed no wrong. The impugned order is unexceptionable; and the revision petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed, with costs.

5. The learned Labour Court shall proceed with the main matter and dispose it of expeditiously. H.B.T./865/Lb.P Revision dismissed.