1996 PLP 549 (PLC)

Haroon Mirza for Respondents Nos. 3 to 5.' Respondent No. 6 in person. Date of hearing: 13th March, 1996. By way of the present revision petition has been called in question soundness of an order dated 11‑12‑1995, rendered by the Punjab. Labour Court No.4, Faisalabad, directing fresh election of the office‑bearers of the Crescent Textile Mills Workers' Union, Sargodha Road, Faisalabad, to be held by the Registrar of the Trade Unions, Faisalabad Region, Faisalabad, under his supervision, within a fortnight.

2. In the election held on 2‑1‑1995, the petitioners, Imdad Awan, Shabbir Ahmad Awan and Riasat Ali Awan, were chosen as the President, Senior Vice President and the Finance Secretary of the Workers'. Union of Crescent Textile Mills, and the same approved by the Registrar on 2‑6‑1995. The term was stated to be two years, so that‑the next election was due in January, 1997. 20 members of the union reportedly expressed lack of confidence as regards independence and .integrity of the President, the Senior Vice‑President and the Finance Secretary, whereupon Rana Talib Hussain, General Secretary, on 12‑10‑1995, convened a meeting of the General Body of the Union for 15‑10‑1995.. As many as 195 members participated in the meeting dated 15‑10‑1995, held under the Chairmanship of Vice‑President, Mr. Nasrullah Khan. No‑confidence motion was carried against the office‑bearers aforementioned, who were replaced respectively by Muhammad Ilyas, Nasrullah Khan and Rana Shabbir Ahmad, Nasrullah Khan, Vice‑President and Rana Shabbir Ahmad, Office Secretary tendered their resignations and they were succeeded by Khalid Mahmood and Muqaddas Ali. One Tahir Abbas succeeded Khalid Mahmood as member of the Executive Council. The proceedings were submitted to the Registrar of the Trade Unions, who accorded his approval thereto on the following day, i.e. 16‑10‑1995. This change‑over was challenged by Imdad Awan, Shabbir Ahmad Awan and Riasat Ali Awan before the Labour Court at Faisalabad, on 22‑10‑1995, under section 8(7) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.

3. I have given the matter my careful consideration in the panel of the newly‑elected office‑bearers, the name of the General Secretary of the union does not figure anywhere. It is stated that Rana Talib Hussain continued to be the General Secretary. It is of immense interest to note that although Rana Talib Hussain is shown to have initiated and conducted the entire exercise of fresh election, in October, 1995, he disowns having done so. Same is the position of Khalid Mahmood, Vice‑President. Respondents Nos.1 to 5 also state that although a 'meeting of the General Body might have been requisitioned, the same had not seen the light of the day, no election was held, and actually the constitution also was never amended. Rana Talib Hussain submitted his resignation on 8‑10‑1995., and the same is shown to have been accepted on 14‑10‑1995 (Annexure 'B').

4. Learned counsel for the revision‑petitioners has drawn the attention of the Court to the unusual character of the election activity. Whereas the election dated 2‑1‑1995 had been approved after five months, on 2‑6‑1995, a single day was shown to have been spent by the Registrar in according the requisite sanction to the so‑called fresh election claimed to have been held on 15‑10‑1995. The undue haste, with which the whole process was initiated and concluded would be beyond anybody's comprehension. It is maintained by the petitioners that all these proceedings were‑fictitious are bogus and those interested in the change‑over seem to have done so on getting a league with the Registrar, as also the mill management. It is also submitted that the term of office‑bearers, which was of two years duration was stated to have been curtailed to one year, through an amendment effected in the constitution, although this development too had not occurred in actual practice and it was all a fiction.

5. The representative of the Registrar, in attendance in this Court; states that the Registrar had undertaken the enquiry through the Assistant Director, Labour within a day. Well, this is not understandable; 'and one really fails to follow as to how and why was the entire exercise rushed through within one day. In the field there now remains only Shabbir Ahmad, Cashier, respondent No. 6, who is putting in contest to the revision petition, all others having sided with the petitioners, learned counsel for whom would, therefore, be justified in taking up the stand that even though the learned Labour Court might have ordered the fresh election in good faith to bring an end to the tug of war between the rival factions, the direction about the new election was justifiable on no valid premises, as the previous office‑bearers elected on 2‑1‑1995 were to hold the office till January, 1997. Unless lack of trust was exhibited against the office‑bearers through a genuine and undisdained move, they could not be stopped from operating as duly elected representatives of the labour union respondent No.6 says That the interests of the labour class are not being looked after, by, reason of the office‑bearers having joined hands with the mill management. In actual practice, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, Shabbir Ahmad has been put up as a stooge by the proprietorship/ management of the mills, and he is the only person whose activities are not conducive to the welfare of the workers. He alone indeed is truly power‑hungry, who is out to jeopardize the cause of the working class. Whatever is the real state of affairs, it seems certain that the change‑over shown to have been effected as regards election of office‑bearers of the union was a sham affair, which was not concurred in by the large majority of the workman and members of the union.

6. I have, therefore, no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that respondent No.6's stand‑point is delusive and fallacious; it is outrageous and mischievous, it is bereft of factual transparence and legal sacrosance. The order passed by the learned Labour Court is, therefore, set aside, and the revision petition is accepted, although with no order as to costs. H.B.T./804/Lb.P Revision petition accepted.