2001 PLP 64 (PLC)

‑‑‑‑Ss. 22 & 34‑‑‑Fresh election of Trade Union‑‑‑Grievance petition of employer‑‑‑ Respondents who claimed to be President and General Secretary of Trade Union in employer establishment, made statement before Registrar, Trade Unions that a compromise had been arrived at between them and employer establishment for holding fresh election of Trade Union‑‑ Registrar, Trade Unions was accordingly directed to arrange for holding of fresh election of Trade Union under his supervision‑‑‑Employer establishment had filed application against Registrar Trade Unions and the said office‑bearers alleging that no compromise had been arrived at between them and the said office‑bearers‑‑‑Employer establishment had also alleged that Trade Union in the establishment had illegally been formed and me office‑bearers of Trade Union had no locus standi to approach the Registrar, Trade Unions for fresh election‑‑‑Labour .Court disposed of grievance petition filed by employer establishment under S. 34 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 in accordance with alleged compromise in absence of employer or his representative‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Labour Court was not justified to dispose of grievance petition in a slipshod manner without caring to ascertain that employer establishment was properly and adequately represented in the date when said petition was disposed of in accordance with alleged compromise which was denied by the employer‑‑‑Order of Labour Court was set aside and case was remanded to be decided afresh in accordance with law. Ch. Abdul Rab for Appellant. Nemo for Respondents. The appeal is directed against the order dated 13‑12‑1995, ‑rendered by the learned Labour Court No.3, Lahore, at Ferozewala, disposing of a petition, filed under section 34, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, by the Premier Paper Mills, Lahore‑Sheikhupura Road, Lahore, against the Registrar, Trade Unions, Lahore Range, and two other persons, claiming to be the President and the General Secretary of the Mazdoor Ittehad Union.

2. An application under section 151, C.P.C., along with the main petition, for ad interim injunction submitted by the establishment had earlier on 10‑10‑1995 been allowed by the Labour Court. In the said order, the learned lower Court had exhaustively dealt with the matter at interim stage, and granted the stay order, observing that the establishment had an arguable case and was not obliged to negotiate and deal with the trade union, alleged to have illegally been formed and elected, despite having outsiders and non workers as its members, and one Muhammad Arif having been shown as an approved office‑bearer of the Mazdoor Ittehad Union, in spite of his being an office‑bearer of the parallel union, having the status of C.B.A. A prayer had been made for suspension of operation of the order of election of the trade union and for its de‑registration. The respondent union having taken up a very material and important objection against competence of the establishment's‑petition under section 34, it was directed that every effort would be made towards final disposal of the petition as expeditiously as possible. 3. 13‑12‑1995 was a date of hearing. It was stated that the parties had arrived at a settlement out side the Court. Respondents Nos.2 and 3, the so- called President and the Secretary of the Mazdoor Union, had made a statement earlier on 7‑11‑1995 that they had no objection against an enquiry being held by the Registrar Trade Unions, as regards the elections of the office‑bearers of the union, adding that they would not oppose in any manner the re‑election. The Registrar was accordingly directed to arrange for, holding of fresh elections of the union, under his supervision, strictly in accordance with law.

4. Perusal of the record of the Labour Court reveals that the matter had been adjourned on 24‑10‑1995 to 7‑11‑1995 for the evidence .of the establishment. On subsequent dates on which the Court was functioning i.e. 7‑11‑1995, 13‑11‑1995, 23‑11‑1995, and 29‑11‑1995, respondents Nos.2 and 3 along with their learned counsel, or otherwise, were present, together with the departmental representative of the Registrar (Mr. ‑Anwar Hussain Butt). Mr. Muhammad Saeed Azhar, representative of the employer was also in attendance, on a few dates. Sheikh Muhammad Muzaffar, Admin Officer, represented the concern on 6‑12‑1995. Respondents Nos.2 and 3 did not I make appearance on 6‑12‑1995, but on 13‑12‑1995 they were present alright, alongwith Registrar's representative. None for the establishment, however, was in attendance in the Court, on the said date, i.e. 13‑12‑1995. The learned Court below, however, proceeded to dispose of the petition, in accordance with the aforesaid compromise, stating that all the principal parties were present before him. It is, however, to be noted that the establishment was unrepresented, from which incidence it would follow that the management or the establishment was not a party to the so‑called compromise. Thus, the final order dated 13‑12‑1995 could not be permitted to remain intact and operate.

5. This is what has been narrated in an out‑spoken manner by the learned counsel representing the establishment (Ch. Abdul Rab) in the memorandum of appeal. He is certainly not incorrect when he urges that the learned Labour Court had proceeded to dispose of the matter finally in a slipshod fashion, without caring to ascertain that the establishment was properly and adequately represented, on the last date, when the petition under section 34 was finally disposed of in accordance with the alleged compromise. In so doing the Court was actually condoning the alleged breach of the intent and the provisions of the statute, having been brought to its notice by the establishment, in a multi‑dimensional manner. I need not reproduce the submission embodied in the memorandum of appeal, but the main assertion is that respondents Nos.2 and 3, claiming to be the President and the Secretary of the Trade Union, were in fact the products of a clandestine, under‑hand and an illegal election, that had really not mechanical approval of the Registrar, and even the learned Labour Court had summarily disposed of the petition under section 34, although it was imperative that the legal status of the Mazdoor Ittehad Union should first have been determined, in the light of the evidence to be led by the parties and the legal provisions applicable. The illegally‑constituted union, according to the learned counsel, had no locus standi to sponsor an act initiated for holding a referendum, and a move had, therefore, been made for a cancellation of the panel 'of office‑bearers and de‑registration of the union. With added emphasis, it had been urged that even law Courts disapprove and disdain violation of statutory provision, and as such it would be in the fitness of things that the prayer made by the establishment be acceded to as early as ' possible, so that trade unions are formed and the elections are held, in consonance with and not in disregard of provisions of law. This indeed would be in the interest and well‑being of the both, the working class as also of the industrial/commercial establishment.

6. The appeal is accepted, with no order as to costs. As, however, the question of legal status of the union and the competence of the establishment's petition under section 34, I.R.O. has not been examined and determined, on merits, so far it is desired and directed that without any amount of delay this shall be done by the learned Laboure Court; and for the purpose I would remand the case to the said Court (Laboure Court No.3, Lahore, at Ferozewala). H.B.T./12/P. Appeal accepted.