AWARD AGHA IMDADALLY CHAIRMAN). Reference was made by the then Provincial Government of West Pakistan on 13th March 1970 for adjudication and determination of the industrial Dispute which had arisen between the Management and its Workers in the Banaras Saree HouseLtd, Karachi.A few more industrial disputes regarding other concerns had also been referred by this common order but we are concerned here with the case of the Banaras Saree House Ltd.
2. At the time of this Reference there was only one Trade Union of its Workers in relation to Banaras Saree House Ltd., Karachi which was named and styled as Banaras Saree House Workers' Union and this Union in its capacity as a Collective Bargaining Agent in respect of the Banaras Saree House Ltd., had raised the present Industrial Dispute resulting in the Reference to this Court. After the Reference order was received in this Court the Workers' Union filed its statement of claims and on service of summonses for the present proceedings the Banaras Saree House Ltd. also filed its reply statement. These formalities were completed by 26th June 1970 by which time this Court had seen two Chairmen after whom I took over charge here as the Chairman of this Court on 1st September 1970. Fresh notices were issued to the parties for proceeding with the case. By 23rd September 1970, both the parties were duly served and the case was set down for hearing on this date. It might be mentioned that the General Secretary of the Workers' Union aforesaid at the time of Reference was Mr. Muhammad Akbar. On 23rd September 1970, the first date of final hearing, two Advocates filed their vakalatnama and sought permission to represent one the Workers' Union mentioned above and the second on behalf of Mr. Fazal Qayum who claimed to be the new General Secretary of the same Union as he had been by then, according to him, duly elected by the workmen. The Advocate who appeared for the office-bearers of the Union who had raised the present dispute at the relevant time (hereinafter referred to as the "Office-Bearers" of the Union) was Mr. Ali Amjad and tire counsel who sought permission to appear for the new office bearers as authorised by one among them i.e. Mr. Fazal Qayum, General Secretary (hereinafter referred to as the ---New Office --Bearers") was Mr. S. A. Waheed. I had granted permission to both of them as at that time I did not apprehend that there will be any dispute between these two counsels claiming to represent and conduct the case on behalf of the Workers Unions each fn his own individual capacity as I thought ~ that they would probably act in collaboration and cooperation since, as I assumed at that time, that their interest was common. But soon thereafter I was disillusioned as I found that both these counsels raised, a strong dispute each claiming in his own right to be entitled to represent the Union and solely conduct the case on its behalf without interference by the other one. Thus, as they also requested, it became necessary to decide as to who should be permitted to conduct the case on behalf of the Union. On 28th September 1970 an application was also put fn by Mr. Ali Amjad on behalf of the Office-Bearers which in fact stated that Mr. S. A.
Waheed had filed his vakalatnama on behalf of Mr. Fazal Qayum, alleged new General Secretary of the New Office-Bearers of the Union, but the claim of the latter - was only based on -the ground that he had been elected as General Secretary in the meantime for the year 1970 and he was nowhere in the picture earlier fn the proceedings of the case. It was also stated therein that the Office-Bearers had contested the claim of Mr. Fazal Qayum for being the General Secretary and it was asserted that Mr. Muhammad Akbar still continued to be the General Secretary of the Union.
Lastly it was brought to the notice of the Court S that in the meanwhile the Office-Bearers had submitted an L application to the Registrar of Trade Unions who had fixed 29th September 1970 for determination of the question is to who1, was the proper General Secretary for the Union and until determination of this question adjournment was sought for. I, therefore, adjourned the case for this purpose. It appears that Registrar of Trade Unions decided the contested claims of the Office- Bearers and the New Office-Bearers of the Union and on 14th October 1970 he informed Mr. Fazal Qayum by his letter of the same date that although the latter had been recognised as the New General Secretary of the Union by him yet on the agitation of the propriety of this decision on the part of the Office-Bearers of the Union he had revised his previous decision and ordered that the office-bearers including the name of Mr. Fazal Qayum as the General Secretary, then was cancelled, in other words he again informed Mr. Fazal Qayum that the General Secretary for the Union would still be considered to be Mr. Muhammad Akbar. This letter as signed by Assistant Director (Registration) for Registrar of Trade Unions, Karachi is on record in original. This action of the Registrar of Trade Unions was brought to the notice of this Court on the November 1970 when the case was fixed for hearing but on the same day Mr. S: A. Waheed on behalf of Mr. Fazal Qayum moved an application whereby he challenged the validity of the decision of the Registrar of Trade Unions and stated in it that it was without jurisdiction and was not binding on this Court as such the question of representation was to be decided by the Court independently of the decision of the Registrar of Trade Unions. He also then requested in his application that detailed arguments for deciding this question were required for which time was requested. Consequently the case was adjourned to the next date of hearing after notice of this application was ordered to be given to the other side, which was accordingly served.
3. 1 have now heard both the counsel i.e. Mr. Ali Amjad for the Office-Bearers of the Union who were enjoying that capacity in their Union even at the time the present Reference was made by the then Government of West Pakistan and also Mr. S. A. Waheed on behalf of the alleged New Office- Bearers of the Union.
4. Mr. S. A. Waheed firstly, contended that the Registrar of Trade Union ns had no power whatever to decide the question in controversy as to who were to be treated as validly elected office-bearers of the Union according to relevant law as this duty and power is not placed in him by virtue of section 13 of the Ordinance which is the only section in the Ordinance enumerating his functions and powers. Therefore, the mere fact that the Registrar has recognised Mr. Muhammad Akbar to be the General Secretary of the Union even for present purposes -his decision following this course of action Was of no consequence so far this Court was concerned which, he contended, had to decide this question independently, of if. The arguments raised by the learned counsel is a fallacious one as in the same breath he approbates and reprobates for he contends that the last decision of the Registrar recognising Mr. Muhammad Akbar still to be the General Secretary of the Union is outside his jurisdiction in which case how it would be possible to hold his second part of the argument sound which he advances that the list of office-- bearers approved by the Registrar including the name of Mr. Fazal Qayum was to be held good. Nevertheless apart from the question as to the powers and functions of the Registrar under section 13 of the Ordinance, which I think does not help to resolve the controversy under consideration the question still remains as to which of the counsel, should be allowed to represent the case of the Union during the proceedings.
5. It is undisputed that the executive of a Trade Union to provided in subsection (6) of section 22 of the Ordinance is entitled to represent all or any of the workmen in, any proceed--ings under the Ordinance, therefore, the question that really falls for determination is two-fold (1) whether as to who should be considered to be the executive of the workers' Union for the purposes of this case and (2) who should be then allowed to represent this executive and conduct the case exclusively on its behalf ?
6. In my opinion for resolving this question the ordinary and general principle of C. P. C. would come into play according to which decision on this question should be taken. Look in at the problem in this perspective it is abundantly clear that a the time when the Reference for adjudication and determination of the Industrial Dispute was made the General Secretary of the Trade Union which raised the dispute resulting in the reference was Mr. Muhammad Akbar and it is admitted by the other side that meeting of the workers of the Union as alleged had taken place on 10th May 1970 nearly two months after the date of the reference in which it is said that new office-bearers were elected including Mr. Fazal Qayum who was allegedly elected as the General Secretary. It is obvious, therefore, that the present Industrial Dispute pending adjudication was sponsored and espoused by the Trade Union at the time when strong its office --bearers the General Secretary was Mr. Muhammad Akbar and not Mr. Fazal Qayum who only at best can be said to have come into picture nearly two months after the Reference. I might also say that it would be very essential to consider that at the time of the Reference the executive of the Workers' Union, was also constituted amongst its office-bearers by the General Secretary Mr. Muhammad Akbar and this point of time is to be considered as of utmost importance with reference to which it should be decided as to who then was entitled to represent the workers in the case. Looking at the problem from this viewpoint it is quite clear that at that time the executive of the Workers' Union was the body amongst who Mr. Muhammad Akbar was the General Secretary through whom the executive had to act and Mr. Muhammad Akbar ha authorised his own Advocate now to represent the Workers' case in the proceedings as such I hold that the New Office- H Bearers really, apart from what is just said, even on principles of justice and fair play should not 6e allowed to represent the Workers' Union in these proceedings. From practical point s of view it will also be detrimental to the interest of the executives of the Workers' Union at the time when this Reference was made as the present Industrial Dispute has been sponsored and espoused by this executive of the Union and it may well be that.the New Office-Bearers, if they are allowed to represent the Workers' Union in the proceedings no justice would be done to the cause of the Workers' Union as taken up on its behalf by the executive at the time of the Reference. This finding, I am of the opinion, is all the more desirable to be taken because it is also alleged in somewhat indirect manner that the New Office- Bearers might not support the cause of the previous Office-Bearers of the Workers' Union and as such a just decision adjudicating upon the Industrial Dispute now pending may not be arrived at.
7. For the foregoing reasons I find that it will only be expedient and right in the interests of justice in order to achieve industrial peace and harmony between the workers and the Management in this case ultimately by resolving the Industrial Dispute on right and fair basis to allow Mr. Ali Amjad to represent exclusively and conduct the case on behalf of the Workers' Union and I order accordingly.
In view of these circumstances I recall the order giving permission to Mr. S. A. Waheed counsel on behalf of Mr. Fazal Qayum to conduct this case. I might, however, conclude this order by saying that Mr. Fazal Qayum if he still feels aggrieved may if so advised move an application for the alleged New Office --Bearers to be made as a party or in other case I am willing to allow him or his Representative only to watch the proceedings to safeguard his interests if he so desires.
Announced in open Court.