M.S.H. QURAISHI (CHAIRMAN).--The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows. On an application made on 25-11-1985 by the appellant union namely the House Building Finance Corporation Workers Union for holding of ballot for determination of the Collective Bargaining Agent in the House Building Finance Corporation, Mr. Mahmood Akhter, Member of this Commission, exercising powers of Registrar Trade Unions, directed, on 12-1-1986, the holding of such ballot and in this connection authorised Mr. Dawood Ahmed Malik, Assistant Director Labour Welfare, Islamabad under section 22 (13) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 "to perform all the functions of Registrar Trade Unions for the aforesaid secret ballot ...." Mr. Dawood Ahmed Malik held a meeting on 31-3-1986 for finalizing the voters list in the course of which the appellant Union raised the following objections: - (1)12 workers posted in Northern Areas should not be included in the list of voters.
(2)12 workers, whose list had been annexed by them, should be excluded from the list of voters as their service had been less than 90 days.
The Assistant Director overruled the objections, whereupon the appellant union moved a petition which was disposed of on 6-4-1986 by Mr. S. Rais Ahmad Jafri, Senior Member with the observation that the Assistant Director could not permit such workers as are not members of any contesting union to cost their votes. As regards the workers posted in the Northern Areas, the leaned Senior Member did not consider himself competent to re-open the decision already made in exercise of powers of Registrar Trade Unions. The referendum was held on 10-4-1986 in which the appellant union participated though as they assert, under protest. In the ballot they challenged certain votes including 12 of the workers posted in Northern areas. But before a decision could be given by the Polling Officer, the appellant union moved an application on 14-4-1986 praying that the challenged votes be rejected and be excluded from the count.
2. Mr. Mahmood Akhtar, Member, who disposed of the petition on 4-6-1986, held, inter alia, that the 12 votes of workers posted in the Northern areas were to be rejected as the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 did not extend to those areas and directed the Assistant Director to declare the result in accordance with his order. This led to the filing of an appeal by the H. B. F. C. Employees Union (hereinafter called the respondent Union). Since a decision about challenged votes was to be given by the Polling Officer under the provision of Regulation 16 (18) of the National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973, which decision was binding on the contesting unions, the Full Bench, vide its judgment dated 21-8-1986 set aside the order dated 4-6-1986 of Mr. Mahmood Akhter and sent the case back to the Polling Officer for his decision on the challenged votes under the said Regulation 16(18).
3. The appellant union then raised the following two points before the Polling Officer in respect of the challenged votes: - (1)That 12 employees belong to Northern areas offices of H. B. F. C. Where Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 is not applicable.
(2)That one employee has less than 90 days' service in H.B. F. C., Islamabad.
4. The objections were rejected on 21-8-1986 for the reason mainly that a decision on the objections had already been given by the Registrar (Mr. Daud Ahmad Malik) on 31-3-1986 and that the names of the said 13 employees which had been challenged existed in the final list of voters supplied by the Registrar for the ballot.
The appellant union thereupon moved a petition before Mr. Mahmood Akhtar, Member, which was rejected on 28-8-1986 on the ground that the learned Member having himself "authorised the Assistant Director Labour Welfare, Islamabad to perform all of my functions to hold the said secret ballot" was not competent to go into the objections. Hence this appeal.
5. The contentions are (i) that the Polling Officer has not applied his own independent mind but has simply followed the order of Mr. Daud Malik passed on 31-3-1986, (ii) that the Registrar was bound to decide the question of correctness of the voters list under section 22 (5) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 irrespective of any decision by the Polling Officer and (i.e) that, in any case, the appellant union having participated in the ballot under protest, were not bound by the decision of the Polling Officer.
6. Regulation 16(18) empowers a Polling Officer to decide about challenged votes and his decision is to be bind the contesting unions. It reads:- Invalid ballot papers.--The Polling Officer shall give a decision about challenged votes at the spot and the decision shall be binding on the contesting trade unions.
It is thus clear that once the ballot is held, a decision about challenged votes is to be given only by the Polling Officer which shall be binding on the contesting unions and as such final qua them. The present appeal, as can be seen, does not arise out of the order of Mr. Daud A Malik dated 31-3-1986 but of the decision of the Polling Officer on the challenged votes. The appellants, being bound by his decision, have no locus to agitate the same. They assert that their participation was under protest for which they rely on an application made to the Assistant Director on 7-4-1986. But in that application their request was only for preparation of a fresh voters list and for fixation of a date of referendum. However, this was not done and the referendum is, therefore, no sufficient basis to hold that their participation in the ballot was under protest. Moreover, their main objection which related to the 12 Northern Area votes had not been entertained by Mr. Jafri, Senior Member of the Commission against which the appellant union had taken no further remedy. They are, therefore, deemed to have acquiesced in the order of the Assistant Director dated 31-3-1986 and as such can not agitate against it now.
7. It is also not correct to say that the Polling Officer has not applied his own mind. He has, no doubt, made, mention of the order C of the Assistant Director dated 31-3-1986, but has given his own reason, as already brought out in para. 3 above that the names of the employees whose votes had been challenged existed in final list of voters supplied to him by the Registrar.
8. For these reasons, we find no valid basis for interfering with the impugned order of the learned Member or of the Polling Officer.
The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed, in limine.