1. ' The petitioner, Abdul Latif Qureshi has made a grievance through this petition that the respondent, Mr. Muhammad Pervez Jalees Alvi, Deputy Registrar N.I.R.C. Is not proceeding with the election process in accordance with law and the constitution of the union, as earlier directed while disposing the objections in Case No,13(72)/04 on 23-11-2004. In this respect he filed a Writ Petition No,3641 of 2004 making similar grievance which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court through order dated 30th of December, 2004 with the direction that the objections raised by him be disposed of in accordance, with law by this forum.
2. ' It was inter alia argued that the respondent Deputy Registrar was simply directed to supervise the election which is to be conducted according to the constitution of the union by the Election Commission consisting of a Chairman of the Union and two of its members. An objection to the charging of nomination fee has also been made.
3. ' I have heard the learned Counsel as well as the' petitioner in detail. It is pertinent to mention at the very outset that earlier Mr. Akbar Ali Khan, General Secretary made an application respecting the approval of the election of this very union held on 14-11-2002. The present petitioner along with Mr. Kaukab Iqbal as well as Mr. Ishrat Mahmood Butt, office-bearers of the earlier Executive submitted objections. The then learned RITU approved the said election on 13-5-2003. All the three objectors filed appeal No,12(14)/03 before the Full Bench against the approval of the election. However, during the pendency of the appeal, another election was held on 24-9-2004 at Bakhtiar Labour Hall, Nisbet Road, Lahore in the General Body Meeting for a period of three years. Mr. Akbar Ali Khan, General Secretary again submitted an application for the approval of the same before this Comniission. In support of his request he appended all the documents inclusive of cutting from the National Dailies of repute to support his stance. However, the present petitioner Abdul Latif Qureshi along with Mr. Kaukab Iqbal as well as Ishrat Mahmood Butt office-bearers of the earlier Executive submitted objections and took a stance that the election was never held. Their prayer was that the election be held under the supervision of N. I . R. C .
4. ' Accordingly after hearing the parties so as to cultivate better atmosphere, an interim order was passed on 2nd November, 2004 that the body elected through election dated 24th of September, 2004 would only perform day to day duties and functions andshall not take any major cause of the workers with the management.
5. ' Subsequently an application was moved by Akbar Ali Khan, General Secretary stating that due to the interim order passed on 2nd of November, 2004, the settlement which was going to be finalized by all the CBAs of Baluchistan, N.-W.F.P., Sindh and Headquarter with the management had been stayed. He prayed that the interim order be modified to the extent that the elected body be allowed to finalize package already agreed by the CBAs of Baluchistan, N.-W.F.P., Sindh and Headquarter. During the course of hearing of the said application Mr. Noor Muhammad Khan Chandia, learned Counsel appeared for the Bank and he also substantiated the stance taken by Mr. Akbar Ali Khan that the package had been finalized and the CBA representatives of all the Provinces are supposed to sign the same as per I.R.O., 2002. Signing has only been deferred due to the interim order of the Commission it was pointed out.
6. ' The present petitioner seriously objected the modification and made an alternative prayer that the objectors be also allowed to sign the memorandum of settlement along with the elected body whose approval was under challenge.
7. ' I rejected, the alternative prayer of the objectors and allowed the elected body to sign the memorandum of settlement which was already finalized. The operative part of my order was as under:-- "In this view of the matter I am of the considered view that the interest of entire workers of National Bank of Pakistan which they would gain from this pay package cannot be frustrated/jeopardized simply at the asking of the Objectors. Their internal dispute should not come in the way of the large number of workers who would be benefited with the new settlement. Even otherwise the CBAs of other Provinces and Headquarters who are not party to this litigation would also suffer as the management would like to give even handed treatment to all the workers belonging to five CBUs. In the absence of representation from Punjab, it would not be finalized.
8. ' The other arguments of the objectors that by allowing the other side to sign the settlement they would gain politically is not proper, keeping in view the interest of entire workers of National Bank of Pakistan.
9. ' In these circumstances I, modify the earlier order dated 2-11-2004 to the extent that the present elected bodywould be competent to sign the settlement which earlier through negotiations by all the five CBAs has reached finalization."
10. ' Thereafter through my order dated 23-11-2004 I did not approve the election and directed that the internal election of the union as agreed by all the parties be held under the supervision of Mr. Muhammad Pervez Jalees Alvi, Deputy Registrar, Lahore. Consequent to the aforesaid order the Deputy Registrar embarked upon the process of holding of election. He secured the list of the workers in accordance with law from the existing General Secretary, Mr. Akbar Ali Khan. One of the objectors Mr. Kaukab Iqbal gave consent to the list of the workers in the following terms:-- "I show my consent to sign over this list of workmen submitted by the union office just to hold election but I reserve my right to challenge it in any lawful forum."
11. ' Thereafter the Deputy Registrar fixed a schedule of election which was going to be held on 6-1- 2005.
12. ' The matter does not end over here as these objectors started making applications before the Deputy Registrar for the postponement of the election on different pretexts. The Deputy Registrar through a detailed order passed on the 18th of December, 2004 rejected all the objection raised by M/s. Kaukab Iqbal, Jawad Ahmed, Abdul Latif Qureshi and Muhammad Haleem Qureshi. It is pertinent to mention here that Mr. Kaukab Iqbal approached me at Islamabad and submitted an application for the postponement of the election. He was reminded that the elections have been scheduled and the earlier election had not been approved at their insistence as such in the circumstance, there is no reason to postpone the election. He immediately took back the application and stated that he would not press the same. Thereafter another objector the present petitioner filed the writ petition which as already stated was disposed of by the learned Single Judge on 30-12-2004.
13. ' The afore stated resume demonstrates that the petitioner and his colleagues earlier filed the objection simply to frustrate the application for the approval of election, submitted by Akbar Ali Khan. Thereafter when their prayer/objection was allowed and the fresh elections were ordered to be held, they have taken complete somersault. They are now trying all methods simply to avoid the holding of election. The order passed by Deputy Registrar fully demonstrates that he has taken all steps in furtherance of holding of election by associating all the parties with their full consent. If the petitioner and his associates are so sure of their popularity then they should face the voters and substantiate their worth.
14. Their plea that Mr. Muhammad Pervez Jalees Alvi was only asked to supervise the election and without constitution of Election Commission as required under the union constitution, he cannot hold the election is devoid of any force. The earlier election according to the other side was held by the Election Commission constituted by the union but the present petitioner along with his associates objected to the same. So as to dispel their apprehension at their insistence, I directed Mr. Muhammad Pervez Jalees Alvi to supervise the election. As reflected from his detailed order dated 18-12-2004 he has chalked out a detailed schedule fixing the duties of different officials of the N.I.R.C. As well as Labour. Directorates to have transparent election. The Election Commission under the constitution is to supervise the election. The same functions at the insistence of the objectors had been undertaken by the Commission itself by appointing the Deputy Registrar under subsection (9) of section 9 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as Ordinance). It is in the following terms:-- "In case there is a dispute in relation to the change of office-bearers of a trade union or any trade union is aggrieved by order of the Registrar made under subsection (7), any office-bearer or member of the trade union may apply or appeal to the Labour Court which shall within seven days of receipt of the application or appeal, as the case may be, pass an order either directing the Registrar to register such alteration or change or may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, direct the Registrar to hold fresh elections of the trade union under his supervision."
15. In the afore stated provision the word "Labour Court" has been used. Section 50 of the Ordinance would be relevant to dispel the argument that the Deputy Registrar of this Commission has no jurisdiction to conduct the election. It would be appropriate to reproduce the same.
16. "50. Benches of the Commission, etc.--(1) The Chairman of the Commission shall exercise general superintendence over its affairs.
(2) For the efficient performance of the functions of the Commission, the Chairman of the Commission shall constitute--
(a) a Full Bench of the Commission which shall consist of not less than three members of the Commission; and
(c) as many other Benches of the Commission consisting of one or more members of the Commission as he may deem fit.
(a) The Benches shall (b)
(b) In relation to industry-wise trade union, federations of such trade union, federations at the national level and cases referred to the Commission, perform such functions and exercise such powers as are performed and exercised by a Registrar or a Labour Court in relation to trade unions and federations of trade unions within a Province,and, for this purpose, any reference in this Ordinance to a "Registrar" or "Labour Court", as the case may be, shall be deemed to be. a reference to the appropriate Bench of the Commission to which such functions are assigned: ' Provided that, in the performance of those functions and in the exercise of those powers, the Benches shall, unless otherwise provided in this Ordinance, follow the procedure laid down in the regulations to be made under section 55."
17. Since the Union of National Bank of Pakistan is registered as an industry-wise trade union with the Commission, as such the Commission has got the jurisdiction to perform all such functions and perform such powers which are exercised' by a Labour Court respecting a locally registered trade union: Such local unions respecting which Labour Courts exercise their functions are restricted within a Province, as they do not have any membership in other Provinces. For this purpose that the industry-wise trade union has got its membership in more than one Province, it would be appropriate to reproduce the Explanation given at the end of section 49 of the Ordinante:- "Explanation.---In this section and in the succeeding provisionof this Ordinance, the expressions "industry-wise tradeunions", "federation of such trade unions" and "federation at the national level" refer to a trade union, membership of which extends to establishments in more than one Province and a federation of trade unions whose membership extends to registered trade unions in more than one Province."
18. It would also be appropriate to reproduce subsection (14) of section 20 of the , Ordinance which gives authority to the Chairman who is performing functions of Registrar of Industry-wise Trade Unions (RITU) to authorize his functions to any of the officer of the Commission: -- "The Registrar may authorize in writing an office-bearer to perform all or any of his functions under this Ordinance and the rules made thereunder."
19. ' Further more Regulation 2(g) of the N.I.R.C. (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973 has provided that the Registrar of the Commission would also includes the Deputy Registrar.
20. The reading of aforementioned provisions brings me to an irresistible conclusion that the Deputy Registrar has got all the powers to conduct the election. As already stated the present petitioner and his colleagues demonstrated their no confidence in the Election Commission appointed by the union to conduct the election as such in the circumstance the petitioner cannot approbate and reprobate the same plea. Reliance in this respect is placed upon an un-reported judgment given by the then Learned Single Judge of the High Court in writ petition No,23124 of 1998. In his judgment dated 12-11-1998 he held as under:-- ' The legal objection in regard to the competence of the Deputy Registrar N.I.R.C. To conduct referendum for determining a CBA has also no force. Under section 22(F) of I.R.O., 1969, the N.I.R.C.
21. Can make regulations for conducting the referendum and the regulations so framed are to have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Evidence Act, 1872 (Act I of 1972), the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 (Act V of .1898) the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (Act V of 1908) or any other law of the time being enforced and under this provisions of law, N.I.R.C. Has framed National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973 dated 18-4-1973, with the prior approval of the Federal Government and in Regulation 2(f), the term "Registrar" has been defined which includes the Deputy Registrar of N.I.R.C. And the Regulation 16 of the same Regulations provides a detailed procedure to be followed by the Commission for conducting the referendum which does not prohibit N.I.R.C. For getting the referendum conducted through an officer authorized by it. Section 13 of the I.R.O., 1969 describes the powers and functions of the Registrar Trade Unions and under clause (c) of the same, it is for the Registrar to determine as to which of theTrade Unions is entitled to be certified as the CBA, section 22 lays down a detailed procedure to be adopted by the Registrar for holding a referendum for determining a CBA and under subsection (13), the Registrar can authorize in writing an officer to perform all or any of his functions and in the instant case, as mentioned above, the Chairman N.I.R.C. In his capacity as 'Registrar, Industry-wise Trade Unions, has specifically authorized the Deputy Registrar of N.I.R.C. To conduct the referendum. This issue also came up for consideration before a Division Bench of Baluchistan High Court, Quetta in United Bank Progressive Employees Union, Quetta Circle Quetta through its President v. Registrar of Trade Union, Baluchistan, Quetta and 2 others (1986 CLC 2911) and the learned Judges while considering the provisions of sections 13 and 22 (13) of I.R.O., 1969 held that Registrar can competently delegate his powers to any other Officer to determine CBA out of rival Unions and while delegating such powers, the said delegatee can also be competently authorized by the Registrar to perform his functions regarding procedure to be followed for such determination."
22. ' It would be appropriate to reproduce the observations of the learned eminent Judge of the High Court reported in (2001 PLC 131) in the case of MCB Staff Union. In this case MCB staff union was holding the office after the expiry of its period as provided in its constitution against all norms of justice. The learned Single Judge directed this Commission to hold fair and impartial election of the union. His observations are as under:-- '"Before parting with this judgment I may also observe that every day that has elapsed beyond the period of two years shall be deemed to be without lawful authority and usurpation by the petitioner union, therefore, respondent No,2 is directed to intervene in the matter so as to hold fair and impartial elections of the union so that a representative body of the union may be installed. Copy of this petition shall be sent to RITU for action and compliance." (Under line is mine)
23. ' As far as .The charging of nomination fee is concerned, the N.I.R.C. Has not got its own funds for this purpose which are incurred in holding the internal elections of unions through out Pakistan in case of their dispute, section 20(7) of the Ordinance has only catered in this regard for the determination of. CBA which is as under:-- "Every employer shall provide all such facilities in hisestablishment as may be required by the Registrar for the conduct of the poll but shall not interfere with, or in any way, influence, the voting."
24. This being the position since the Commission has got no funds of its own and the establishment cannot be asked to provide the same in case of internal election of the union, as such all the expenditures of the internal election are met from the nominations fee. The union funds cannot be utilized for holding of internal election as the same are spent only for the welfare of the workers.
25. That is why the law has provided that the employer of the establishment as stated above, shall provide all facilities for the conduct of referendum for CBA. There is no such provision for the holding of internal election. The expenditure incurred upon the internal election of the union are always borne by the contesting groups. Further more the amount in the present case has been fixed by the Deputy Registrar with the consent of the parties keeping in view of the expenditures involved therein of printing of ballot papers, purchase of the ballot boxes, stationery items and TA/DA of all the officials who would be performing their duties in this regard at different stations throughout the. Province of Punjab. It is not denied that presumption of regularity is attached to all the official acts unless and until the same is rebutted. As already stated the Deputy Registrar in his order dated 18-12-2004 which is administrative in nature has given detailed reasons. It has been held in (PLD 1971 SC 811) Lahore Improvement Trust, Lahore through its Chairman v. The Custodian, Evacuee Property, West Pakistan, Lahore and 4 others that before interfering with the official acts, all the sources of jurisdiction has to be explored. It would be appropriate to reproduce the observations of the learned Judges which is in the following terms:-- "Another principle attracted in the case is that before an order passed by a public authority is struck down it is the duty Of the Court to explore every possible explanation for its validity and examine the entire field of powers conferred on the authority in pursuance to which the impugned order has been passed. See The Chairman East Pakistan Railways Board, Chittagang and another v. Abdul Majid Sardar, Ticket Collector (I). It was remarked in this judgment: "Acts performed and orders made by public authorities deserve due regard by Courts and every possible explanation for their validity should be explored and the whole field of powers in pursuance to which the public authorities act or perform their functions examined and only then if it is found that the act done, order made or proceeding undertaken is without lawful authority should the Courts declare them to be of no legal effect."
26. This being the position the petitioner has failed to make out a case of interference.
27. ' Before parting with this order I feel appropriate to say that the internal election of this union was earlier held on 14-11-2002, which was approved by the then learned RITU of the Commission on 13- 5-2003. The present petitioner along with his colleagues filed an appeal against the approval before the Full Bench. During the pendency of the aforementioned appeal before the Full Bench there was another internal election held on 24-9-2004, which too was objected by the present petitioner and his associates. I, in the interest of justice, as already stated so as to cultivate harmonious relationship between the members of the union, directed the Deputy Registrar, Mr. Muhammad Pervez Jalees Alvi to conduct the fresh election. Two elections earlier held were not approved by this Commission. The third one is being held under the supervision of the Commission.
28. The petitioner, I am sorry to say is trying to frustrate the present schedule. Any interference at this stage would certainly create despondency and frustration amongst the other members of the union.
29. For what has been stated above this petition is dismissed.