1998 PLP 363 (PLC)

Anwar Hussain Butt, Senior Clerk for Respondent No.

7. Date of hearing: 27th May, 1997. Punjab Labour Court No.3, Lahore, at Ferozewala, on 24-2-1997, was entrusted with an appeal filed under section 8(7) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, having been filed by Nisar Hussain Khan etc. against, the Registrar Trade Unions, Lahore, and Muhammad Nasir Butt etc, as Punjab Lahore Court No.2, Lahore within the jurisdiction of which Court the matter in issue fell, was without a Presiding Officer. The appellants felt aggrieved by an order dated 31-12-1996, which the Registrar of the Trade Unions had passed, while rejecting the election claimed to have been conducted by their union. Operation of the said order was suspended and the order dated 24-2-1 997 was reiterated or repeated on the next date, which was 8-3-1997, when the Registrar's representative only made appearance, the notices issued to the remaining respondents there having not been received back. Processes were repeated in their names for 18-3-1997. In normal course, the Labour Court should have been enabled or allowed to dispose of the application for ad-interim injunction, if not the appeal itself, but since the record of the lower Court also was requisitioned for perusal, no further progress in the proceedings of appeal, as also the accompanying application, pending before the Labour Court, could be achieved.

2. Elections of the Faletti's Hotel Employees Union are stated to have been held on 22-10-1995, and the petitioners having been elected as office bearers of the union, the Registrar approved the exercise on 31-10-1995. The term was to expire on 21-10-1997. Respondents Nos. 1 to 6, in the revision petition, Registrar being respondent No.7, however, claimed to have carried a motion of no-confidence against the petitioners and to have elected the new office-bearers, on 11-12-1996. The meeting is said to have been attended by as many as 110 members and to have been presided over by one Sadiq Hussain, vide Annexure "G", Letter dated 31-12-1996, at page

34. The Registrar declined to approve the so-called elections, claimed to have been undertaken by respondents Nos. l to 6, on 11-12-1996, as already said. On 21-12-1996. Muhammad Nasir Butt and Ilam Din respectively President and General Secretary of the Union had addressed a communication to the Registrar bringing to his notice the bogus or fictitious character of the exercise dated 11-12-1996, as also colourable conduct of Nisar Hussain Khan, Chief Steward. The same is available on the file. The Registrar summoned the President and the General Secretary, by a letter addressed to them on 26-12-1996, and both sides appeared before him on 29-12-1996. A regular enquiry was conducted by the office of the Registrar, through the concerned Assistant Director, Labour Welfare, and the Labour Officer Factories. It is stated in the order dated 31-12-1996, recorded by the Registrar, Lahore Region, North Zone, Lahore that majority of the members had expressed ignorance about the exercise dated 11-12-1996. Thereupon the Registrar had refused to endorse or approve the election claimed to have been conducted by respondents Nos. 1 to

6. Interestingly Nisar Hussain Khan and Muhammad Nasir Butt both had signified their satisfaction as regards the enquiry proceedings, as is evident from the script dated 29-12-1996. Still, on 24-2-1997, Nisar Hussain Khan etc. preferred an appeal under section 8(7) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, before the Labour Court, expressing their dissatisfaction as regards the proceedings dated 29-12-1996 and the Registrar's order dated 31-12-1996. It is to be noted that the Joint Secretary (self-styled) Muhammad Ajmal is said to have also earlier on 16-12-1996 approached the N.I.R.C. by making a petition under section 22-A(8)(g) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, read with Regulation 32(2) of the N.I.R.C. (P & F) Regulations, 1973 Annexures "C" and "D" and Mr. Sajjad Ahmad Bhatti, learned Member of the N.I.R.C. is stated to have restrained the present petitioners from posing themselves to be office-bearers of the Employees Union and also directed the employer not to negotiate with the revision-petitioners on any union matter. Such an order was rendered on 17-12-1996 (Annexure "E") 3 Mr. Sajjad Bhatti was allegedly not qualified to act as Member, N.I.R.C. and the revision-petitioners claimed having filed a Writ Petition (No.23899 of 1996) challenging his status, as also validity of the proceedings initiated before the N.I.R.C. by respondents Nos. 1 to

6. Writ petition was admitted was admitted for regular hearing by Mr. Justice Ihsan ul-Haq Chaudhry on 29-12-1996 (Annexure F), suspending operation of the order dated 17-12-1996, rendered by Mr. Sajjad Hussain Bhatti. The Writ petition is stated to be still pending and has not finally been disposed of. Probably, in ignorance of the High Court's order dated 29-12-1996, the Learned Labour Court had rendered the impugned orders on 24-2-1997 and 8-3-1997, and it had certainly caused a set-back to the interests of the erstwhile office-bearers of the union, revision petitioners before this forum. If indeed the proceedings dated 11-12-1996, as alleged by the petitioners, were the out came of fabrication and forgery, on the part of respondents Nos. 1 to 6, any effort made to prohibit the petitioners from functioning as office-bearers of the union would have been against the cannons and norms of justice; and it was really nauseating, as also reprehensible, on the part of respondents Nos. 1 to 6 to have posed themselves as newly-elected office-bearers and imposed them on the union, in an unauthorized and unlawful manner, as also nefarious and monstrous manner.

4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners has rightly urged that in granting stay order to the appellants, Nisar Hussain Khan etc., the learned lower Court has literally nullified the stay order dated 29-12-1996, passed by the Hon'ble High Court in the matter, and the impugned orders dated 24-2-1997 and 8-3-1997 would, therefore, be void ab initio. The office bearers of the union elected on 22-10-1995, would normally have held the office for a period of two years, but the term was cut short, apparently in a fictitious and fabricated fashion, by Nisar Hussain Khan etc. in an exercise, authenticity of which was open to doubt, in the highest degree. It was certainly not expedient, just and proper to have acceded to the request of Nisar Hussain Khan etc. appellants before the Labour Court, and issued in their favour a stay order, as prayed for. It is also contended, and not without force, by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that an existing situation cannot be altered and a new situation cannot be created by way of interim relief. The order dated 31-10-1995, passed by the Registrar, approving the election, earlier held on 22-10-1995, had been challenged nowhere and there was no legal warrant to displace the same and replace it by a new order, which Nisar Hussain Khan etc. had sought from the Labour Court. The endeavour on their part was, therefore, foiled, and rightly so, by the Registrar, who rendered an order on 31-12-1996, rejecting the election proceedings submitted by them, claimed to have been conducted on 11-12-1996. The impugned orders were liable to be struck down, especially as the same were passed on the back of the revision-petitioners, respondents before the Labour Court, without hearing them.

5. The plea taken up by the appellants before the Labour Court was that no enquiry had been held by the Registrar, respecting authenticity or validity of the exercise undertaken by them. It was, however, absolutely, untenable and untrue, as the record indicated that the Registrar had heard both the parties on 29-12-1996, and the frontman of the rival group, Nisar Hussain Khan, had himself participated in the proceedings and made a statement to the effect that he was perfectly satisfied with the mode and the manner in which the enquiry hail been held. As, however, these proceedings were not before the Labour Court, the court below seemed to have been misguided in the matter, inasmuch as it was made to pass an order without perusal of the relevant record and without application of its conscious mind. As such, the impugned order suffered from gross infirmity, also injustice, especially as a lot of confusion was created and the Employees Union, which had a vested right to conduct collective bargaining with the employer, under section 22(12) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, was prevented from doing so and the office-bearers were restrained from functioning for further few months, till October, 1997. Rights of the office-bearers as also of the union were stifled and their legitimate and vital interests were frustrated by virtue of the impugned orders, very subsistence of which would violate and run counter to the legitimacy of the status as also the rights of the revision-petitioners, who must be acknowledged to be the lawfully elected office-bearers of the union.

6. Although the learned Labour Court has not yet finally adjudged the propriety and validity of the Registrar's order dated 31-12-1996, preceded by the exercise dated 11-12-1996, claimed to have been conducted by respondents Nos. l to 6, the fact remains that asking the Labour Court to dispose of the application for ad interim injunction finally would serve no useful purpose although the learned lower Court may proceed to hear and decide the appeal dated 24-2-1997 conclusively, and the result of disposal of the appeal will determine the rights and status of one group viz-a-viz other one, and if the result goes in favour of the appellants, there, this order will undergo reversal but otherwise not.

7. Having given my anxious consideration to the submissions made and the rival contentions raised by the parties, I have come to the conclusion that the impugned orders of the Labour Court are susceptible to interference by this court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction and are liable to rescission. I would proceed accordingly, and accept the revision petition, although with no order as to costs. The parties shall appear before the Labour Court No.2, Lahore, having jurisdiction in the matter, for further proceedings, on 23-7-1997. Records, as also a copy of this judgment, shall be remitted to the said Court without, delay. H.B.T./906/Lb/P. Revision accepted.