ABDUL HAFEEZ CHEEMA (CHAIRMAN).--- This appeal, which indeed has a chequered history, impeaches the validity of the decision dated 18-11-2009 passed by the learned Punjab Labour Court No,8, Bahawalpur in the third round of litigation, whereby the grievance petition filed by Rana Tahir Pervez respondent was allowed and the order of his dismissal from service dated 5-5-2001 was set aside being repugnant to the provisions of section 47(2) of the industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and was also in violation of the stay orders issued by the learned Labour Court from time to time. The respondent was ordered to be reinstated with back-benefits.
2. The facts of the case briefly are that the respondent joined service of the appellant Mills in the year 1976 as a Clerk. However, due to good performance he earned promotion as Senior Clerk in the year 1981 and was working in the Fair Price Shop of the appellant. He was the Chairman of the Employees Union (CBA). The CBA had raised an industrial dispute under section 26 of the I.R.O.
1969. The conciliation proceedings were pending before the Conciliator at Bahawalpur for the settlement of the disputes. With this exercise the administration was not happy with the respondent.
3. Apprehending retaliatory/revengeful posture of the management the CBA waS obliged to petition before the learned Labour Court at Bahawalpur with a prayer to restrain tile management to cause undue harassm ent to the Chairman and other members of the office bearers of the union. The labour court granted injunctive order dated 3-12-1999. In blatant disregard of the temporary injunction issued by the court, the appellant stung by the action of the respondent issued a charge sheet on 27-12-1999 and started proceedings against the respondent. It was pointed out by the respondent that during the aforesaid proceedings the management extended threats to the Chairman that in case he failed to withdraw the demand and strike notices he would face dismissal. The respondent however did not yield to the pressure and consequently was dismissed from service vide order dated 5-5-2001.
4. He challenged his dismissal order being in violation of section 47(2) of the I.R.O. 1969 alleging that the respondent being an office bearer of the union (CBA) prior permission of the labour court was compulsory in the given circumstances whereas the appellant had proceeded against him without complying with the above provisions of law. It was also alleged that the action of the appellant was clearly mala fide and out of the vengeance and they could not have done so in the existence of the stay orders dated 3-12-1999 and .14-9-99 issued by the courts. Subsequently legal battle between the parties continued and almost thrice the labour court decided the case in favour of the respondent. Ultimately the appellant Mills challenged the order of reinstatement in the Hon'ble High Court at Multan where no arguments were addressed.But it appeared that the parties had agreed to the remand of the case for fresh trial.
5. It is submitted by doe learned counsel for the appellant that no case has been made out of violation of section 47(2) of the I.R.O. 1969 because the appellant was at liberty to proceed against the respondent if there was a case of misconduct and at the relevant time there was no stay order in the field against the appellant Mills as such the grievance petition has no merit and ought to have been dismissed and the learned Labour Court has failed to appreciate the real facts of the case.
6. Arguments have been heard and record has been perused.
7. A careful perusal of the record in this case shows that soon after the raising of industrial dispute and the commencement of the conciliation proceedings for the settlement of the disputes, the respondent had earned anguish of the management and realizing wrath of the Mills administration the Union went into the court for restraining the appellant mill not to take the law into their own hands. The learned Labour Court after hearing the parties passed the following order on 3-12- 1999:--- (Exh.P.1)
"It has been contended that the petitioner union has served demand notice and strike notice upon the management of the respondents' Mills. The conciliation proceedings are on. The management by adopting unfair labour practice is bent upon punishing the petitioner and office bearers of the CBA union for their lawful trade union activities which is violative of section 47(2) of the I.R.O.
1969. The petitioner has also filed an application for issuance of temporary injunction along with the main petition. Notices to the respondents on the main petition and on the stay application issued for 16-12-1999. The stay application is supported by an affidavit. In view of the aforementioned circumstances and relying on the affidavit, prima facie, petitioner has made out an argueable case. Meanwhile respondents are directed not to transfer or punish any office bearers of the CBA union without prior permission of this court and they are further directed not to initiate proceedings against the members of the CBA union except for the charge of misconduct."
8. This order was confirmed by the labour court Bahawalpur vide order Exh.P-4. Despite this restraining order the mills management had the audacity to charge-sheet the respondent vide letter Exh.P-2 dated 27-12-1999 (vide page No,132 of the Labour Court file). The respondent however denied the allegations vide reply Exh.P-3. Again the respondent approached the labour court through a grievance petition and it was ordered by the court vide order dated 5-1-2000 that the respondents are directed not to pass any final order in the enquiry initiated against the respondent. Vide letter Exh.P-5 it is claimed by the respondent that the management maneouvered to procure an order from the Registrar wherein it was shown that instead of the union headed by Rana Tahir one Mr. Tariq Javed was the chairman vide order dated 9-2-2000. This order was again assailed in the court and that too was suspended vide Labour Court's order dated 25-2-2000.
8. Another development that took place was that the respondent challenged the order dated 19-2- 2000 of the Registrar in the grievance petition before the Labour Court which was set 'aside by the Labour Court vide its order dated 5-10-2000 and the union headed by Rana Tahir was declared to be competent union vide order dated Exh.P-9 dated 13-12-2002 issued by the. Registrar of Trade Unions Lahore category "C". This all showed that the management failed to obtain a judicial order in their favour that the union headed by Rana Tahir was fake, Vide Exh.P-10 the establishment dismissed the respondent from service vide order dated 5-5-20e1. In the meanwhile the management challenged the order of the court declaring the respondent as chairman of the union and his ouster being unlawful in the revision petition before PLAT. However, the appellant management did not press the revision petition and it was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 8-2-2002. The next development was that the appellant filed a contempt petition against the union and its office bears alleging that they have committed unfair labour practice which was dismissed vide order dated 21-5-2003 Exh.P-15 (vide pages Nos.161 to 168 of the Labour Court file).
The learned Labour Court had again decided the matter against the appellant mill and reinstated the respondent vide order dated 5-2-2003 in which it was categorically recorded as under:- "The learned counsel for the complainant lastly argued that at one time this complaint was entertained and process was issued against the accused persons and in the opinion of the learned counsel that order holds the field. The contention is misconceived. The mere fact that my learned predecessor entertained this complaint would not stand in my way to look into the matter in accordance with law.
' For what has been stated above, it would be a futile exercise 'to proceed with the complaint. There is no probability of success of this complaint as the same has been filed against the statutory provisions of law. I, therefore, dismiss this complaint. The accused are relieved. The file be consigned to the record room after necessary completion."
10. The management filed an appeal before the High Court which was allowed with the consent of the parties and the case was remanded for fresh decision.
11. The learned Labour Court after hearing the parties again allowed the grievance petition vide judgment dated 18-11-2009.
12. The record shows that the management's action was mala fide from the day one i.e, from the very issuance of demand and strike notices. The Management had become hostile towards the respondent and they appeared to have maneouvered false complaints against the respondent from their own workers which were intended to forestall the settlements and disputes referred to the Conciliator. Secondly there had throughout been stay orders against the management directing them not to take any adverse action against the respondents but they had been violating it throughout on account of, their imperial hubris and they appeared to have invited themselves this situation because in all the proceedings the management remained unsuccessful throughout at judicial as well as executive level. His claim has been declared as genuine and fair whereas the assertions of the appellant management proved to be sham and, concocted. They had not complied with the provisions of section 47(2) by seeking leave of the court to proceed against the respondent during the pendency of the industrial dispute. There had been successive stay orders directing the appellants not to cause harassment to the respondent union but they did not bother about the judicial order which continued to be operative almost throughout the litigation. I vividly remember that at one stage it was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that if the appeal is decided in favour of the union then the management shall be obliged to close down the mills. This shows that the Chairman of the union is most hated, person in the eyes of the administration and most loved one in the labouring classes. The management appears to have shown no elasticity in their attitude which is not conducive for commercial administrations. A careful perusal of the record shows that even prior to the 'charge sheet the respondent had smelt that the management was out to harass the union and its office bearers/ members on account of the demand and strike notices and also with the reference to the matter which was pending- before the conciliator. As such the proceedings of the alleged misconduct were totally fake and actuated by malice. All this shows that the appellant Mills has failed to make out a case for interference by this court in the decision of the Labour Court.
13. In this view of the matter the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The appellants are directed to reinstate respondent with full back-benefits within, a period of one month positively. There will be no order as to costs.