DECISION ' This is a revision application under section 38(3-a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, against an order, dated 24-1-1989 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Sind Labour Court No,V at Karachi.
2. Admitted facts leading to this revision application are that the elections of Pakistan Seamens'
Union were held on 31-10-1988 in which the applicant as well as respondent No,1 had contested the election of General Secretary. The applicant was declared to be elected as General Secretary and the elections were confirmed by the Registrar Trade Unions who is respondent No,3, on 27-11-1988.
3. The main ground on which the respondent had challenged the elections and its result is that the notice of election was not given sufficiently in advance to enable all the members of the union to exercise their right of vote; that the list of voters was supplied to the respondent No,1 only one day before the elections; that in the elections, bogus votes of dead persons were cast; and that the final results were not signed by the candidates or their agents. Accepting these grounds to be prima facie good ground for the issuance of the impugned order, the learned Labour Court confirmed the interim stay, already granted.
4. I have heard Mr.Muhammad Ashraf Khan, the learned Advocate for the applicant; Mr.Mukhtar Ahmad for respondent No,1; Mr.Mir Muhammad Baloch, Assistant Director (Trade Unions) and the Respondent No,2, Mr.Pervez Iqbal, who is present in person. Mr.Muhaminad Ashraf Khan, the learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the learned Labour Court was well within its rights to issue ad interim order in the first instance but was not justified in confirming the stay order as the facts were before the learned Labour Court in the shape of affidavits and various documents filed by the parties and the learned Labour Court could have tentatively assessed as to whether the alleged grounds were prima facie established or not.
5. Admittedly Seamens' Union has got 6,500 members out of which only about 2,600 votes were cast. It was submitted by Mr.Muhammad Ashraf Khan that most of the members go on ships in the Seas and as such would not be able to vote. Mr.Mukhtar Ahmad Moghal, the learned Counsel for respondent No,1 submitted that under such circumstances the notice of the elections should have been notified sufficiently in advance to give opportunity to all the members to cast their votes, whereas, in the instant case, the notice of elections was published on 4-10-1988 in 2 newspapers, namely, Evening Special and Mashriq, but, in this notice, the place of elections was not notified. The place of election was, however, notified by another notice published through the same newspapers on 11-10-1988. It is submitted that a notice of less than one month in the circumstances in newspapers which are not widely read, cannot be considered sufficient notice to all the members of the union to exercise their right of vote. It is further submitted that according to the rules the elections had to be held within 2 years. The last elections were admittedly held on 30-9-1986, but it was confirmed by the Registrar on 11-10-1986. As such, it is submitted that the members would be under the impression that the elections would be held on 30-9-1988, bore, when it was not being held on that date, it was very necessary that prior to this date, a notice should have been published intimating the members about the next date of elections. Admittedly the list of voters was supplied to Respondent No,1 only one day before and that his objections with respect to the voters filed on 15-10-1988 still remain undecided. It was submitted by Mr.Muhammad Ashraf Khan .That on 29-10- 1988, all the parties including the respondent No,1 gave in writing, that no change be made in the list of voters. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the objection of the respondent No,1 filed on 15-10-1988 remained undisposed of and the list of voters was supplied to him only one day before elections. The grievance of the respondent, therefore, does not appear to be absolutely baseless.
6. Mr.Muhammad Ashraf Khan was asked as to what inconvenience would be caused to the applicant if the order of the learned Labour Court is not interfered with. He candidly conceded that practically it will have no effect because the applicant, who was also elected as General Secretary of the union in the previous elections would continue to hold that post till he is replaced by any other person in any new elections, if any, and furthermore the union which was acting as C.BA would continue to do so under section 52, I.R.O. 1969, till another C.BA. Was appointed. The scope of revision application is limited. The grant of interim relief is discretion of the trial Court which, if not capriciously or arbitrarily exercised by the trial Court should not be lightly interfered with by the superior courts. In view of the circumstances of the case and the fact that this impugned order would cause no practical inconvenience to the applicant, I dismiss this revision application.