1996 PLP 569 (PLC)

Ch. Khalid Farooq for Respondents Nos. 2 to

4. Date of hearing: 5th May, 1996. By way of the present revision petition has been called in question the soundness of the decision dated 25‑9‑1994, rendered by the Punjab Labour Court No.4, Faisalabad, setting aside the order dated 14‑4‑1994 of the Registrar of Trade Unions, whereby election proceedings of the union (Utility Stores Corporation Employees' Union), claimed to have been conducted by petitioners Nos. 2 to 11 were approved.

2. Learned Labour Court, at the instance of Muhammad Siddique, Muhammad Ashraf and Muhammad Zafar Iqbal, claiming to be office‑bearers of the Employees' Union, having approached the ‑Court in appeal under section 8(7) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, had struck down the proceedings of election stated to have been carried out by the rival group, as being bogus and shorn of sanctity, had directed the Registrar to hold fresh election under his supervision, within a period of one month. The Registrar had on 14‑4‑1994 approved the election of the union, stated to have been held on 17‑3‑1994. Respondents Nos.2 to 11 before the Labour Court had come up with the claim that they have been elected as office‑bearers of the union, one Muhammad Aslam having supervised the election as Election Commissioner, Tariq Javed and Muhammad Akram being his Assistants (Muawans). Before the Labotir Court, Muhammad Aslam, as also 33 workers of the union, are stated to have submitted affidavits, deposing that no such election had been held, in actual practice. Muhammad Aslam, aforesaid seems to be a strange type of person. In the Labour Court he made a statement vouchsafing the standpoint of the appellants, and, on 5‑10‑1994, after announcement of decision by the Labour Court, another affidavit was sworn and submitted by him. The same is available on the record of the revision petition. The contents of the affidavit controvert the earlier statement attributed to Muhammad Aslam. Reasons have been given as to how he was brought to the Court anal coerced by the respondents herein to make a statement in their favour on 25‑9‑1994.

3. I find on the record of the Labour Court, at pages 19 to 21, an odd sort of script, which is being described as an affidavit of as many as 33 persons. Learned counsel for the petitioners has rightly lashed at the validity and the sanctity of this, script. Evidently, if these persons were keen to make statements on solemn affirmation, they were required to do so by swearing and submitted their affidavits separately, and a joint statement made in the nature of Annexure 'B' (pages 19 to 21 of the Labour Court file) would not have served the purpose.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has laboured a lot in laying hands upon the case‑law on the subject. He maintains that statement made by a deponent in the shape of an affidavit would not constitute legal evidence, if maker of such a statement is not subjected to cross‑examination and the party disputing credentials of such persons is not enabled to cross‑examine them. PLD 1957 (W.P.) Lahore 844, PLD 1964 SC 236, PLD 1968 Lahore 423, 1985 CLC 2758 and 1987 CLC (Lahore) 792, maybe referred to in this regard. Testimony of Muhammad Aslam and the other 33 persons thus would be of no avail; and the learned Labour Court has erred in according undue importance to these statements, while no legal recognition could be given to such deposition/statements. That being the factual and legal position, the impugned order passed by the Labour Court must not be permitted to hold the field.

5. Actually, in the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 (appellants before the Labour Court) has frankly conceded that he will have no serious objection to raise against approval of the election dated 17‑3‑1994 of the revision petitioners (respondents before the Labour Court), having been approved by the Registrar of the Trade Unions, Punjab, Lahore, on 14‑4‑1994. He said that he was primarily interested in the process of election taking place in time, as per schedule, already announced, adding that giving a finding as regards the validity of the aforesaid election, held in March 1994, at such a late stage, would actually assume the form of just an academic discussion, or a futile exercise, the same having become now a past and closed transaction. Learned counsel for respondents Nos. .2 to 4 has, however, expressed his keenness that this Tribunal should acquit itself of its obligation in expressing itself for or against his standpoint, so that if the submission made by him prevail the veracity and prestige of his clients is vindicated.

6. Well, I ‑have found myself to be largely in agreement with the learned counsel representing the revision petitioners, who were respondents before the Labour Court. I would set aside the impugned order of the Labour Court, on acceptance of the revision petition, although with no order as to costs.

7. Let the election be held, without further delay, by adhering to the Schedule stated to have already been announced. H.B.T./803/Lb.P????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision petition accepted.