2001 PLP 454 (PLC)

Case No. 12(93) of 1998, decided on 20th November, 1998. ‑‑‑‑Ss. 8(7) & 22‑A(9)(a)‑‑-Restraining office holders of Union to act as officers of Union‑‑‑Validity of .order‑‑‑On application tiled on behalf of appellant Union under S.8(7) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, Single Bench of National Industrial Relations Commission restrained respondent from claiming and acting as General Secretary of appellant union and from holding any meeting‑‑‑On appeal against said judgment, Full Bench of National Industrial Relations Commission, respondent was allowed to continue to be General Secretary of Union, but he was restrained from calling General Council meeting‑‑‑Respondent despite said restriction held Executive Council Meeting and removed appellants from their office whose appointment was duly approved by Registrar, Industry-wise Trade. Unions‑‑ Respondent after removing appellant from their office filed application before one of the Members of the said Full Bench to restrain appellants from: acting or posing themselves to be office‑bearers of appellant union and said member accepted application filed by respondent‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Said member was also one of the members of Full Bench which had earlier restrained respondent from calling General Council Meeting‑‑‑Said member, in circumstances, was not competent' to sit over judgment of Full Bench of National Industrial Relations Commission nor he had any jurisdiction to undo approval granted by Registrar, Industrywise Trade Unions‑‑ Proceedings entertained by said member were coram non judice as he had acted in excess of jurisdiction, without lawful authority and in objectionable manner‑-‑Order of said Member whereby appellants were restrained from acting or posing themselves to be office‑bearers of Union, was set aside in circumstances. Zafar Alain for, Representative for Appellants. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 17th November, 1998. The instant appeal is directed against the order of Mr. Bahadar Ali, member dated 3‑7‑1998 whereby the appellants were restrained from‑acting or posing themselves to be the office7bearers of appellant No. 1 union.

2. No one appeared on behalf of the respondents. They were proceeded ex parte. Ex parte arguments were heard. The representative of the appellant vehemently contended that Mr. Bahader Ali, learned Member, had no jurisdiction or lawful authority to entertain a petition under section 22‑A(9)(a) of the I.R.O., 1969, 'and to restrain the office holders of the union to act as officers of the union who had been approved by the RITU. If the respondents were aggrieved therefrom, they could file an appeal. The petition was maliciously entertained by the Single Bench because appellant No. l had reposed no confidence in him and also filed contempt application against Mr. Bahader Ali, Member for passing illegal orders and not conducting the proceedings in accordance with law. He further stated that the appellant union had filed an application under section 8(7) of the I.R.O., 1969 before the Single Bench at Karachi, whereupon vide order dated‑ 24‑4‑1998, respondent No. l was restrained from claiming and acting as General Secretary of the union and also from holding any meeting proposed to be held on 26‑4‑1998 or on any other day thereafter. On an appeal filed by respondent No. 1, the Full Bench of the Commission in which Mr. Bahader Ali was also a Member, vide order dated 11‑6‑1998 allowed respondent No.1 to continue to be the General Secretary but he was restrained from calling the General Council meeting. After the orders of the Full Bench, respondent No.1 allegedly held an Executive Council meeting and removed the appellants from their office and then filed an application before Mr. Bahader Ali, Member and obtained the impugned order which was not only coram non judice but was also without lawful authority especially because Mr. Bahadar Ali was not competent to sit over the judgment of the Full Bench nor had he any jurisdiction to under the approval granted by 'the RITU on 3‑12‑1997 upon an application vexatiously filed by respondent No.

1. Moreover. Mr. Bahader Ali, who was a member of the Full Bench, could not, by entertaining the application in a collateral proceeding, could sit as a judge in his own cause, and indirectly nullify the order of the Full Bench. He further submitted that the proceedings which were tiled by respondent No. 1, on the basis of the Executive Council meeting, had already been rejected by the RITU and hence the petition filed before Mr. Bahader Ali, Member by respondent No. 1, had also become infructuous.

3. While admitting the appeal, the Full Bench through its order dated 16‑7‑1998 had noted all the points raised by the representative of the appellant and suspended the impugned order dated 3‑7‑1998. It is quite serious to note that Mr. Bahader Ali, who was also a member of the Full Bench, without competent authority and in a strange manner entertained a petition which was not at all competent and passed the impugned order whereby the approval granted by the RITU (a Member of the Commission) was held in abeyance, although the respondents, if aggrieved, could only file an appeal/petition against that order, which could only be heard by the Full Bench and not by a Single member. In fact, Mr. Bahader Ali, Member suspended an order of another Member by entertaining an incompetent application and acted without lawful authority. The proceedings entertained were coram non judice. He acted in excess of jurisdiction, without 1awful authority .and in an objectionable Manner. Appellant No.2, had no doubt filed a contempt application against Mr. Bahader Ali Member for mis-conducting himself and passing an illegal order. He also filed an application expressing no, confidence in him. It is quite evident that the impugned order was passed in a revengeful manner without lawful authority on that account. It is also brought to our notice that the proceedings notified by respondent No. 1 removing the appellant, from their offices have since been rejected by the RITU. In view of the above discussion, we accept the appeal, set aside the impugned order of Mr. Bahader Ali, Member dated 3‑7‑1998 and dismiss the petition filed before the Single Bench being coram non judice and also having become infructuous. H.B.T./323/NIRC Appeal accepted.