DECISION This is an appeal against an award of the learned Presiding Officer of Labour Court No. V, Karachi, dated October 6, 1973, whereby the learned Labour Court accepted the application of the Union. The facts shorty put and necessary for the disposal of this appeal, are these.
2. On 7th December 1972, the appellant made an application under Standing Order 11-A of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 (hereinafter called the Standing Orders Ordinance), for closure of the factory. It is the case of the respondent that through clever manoeuvring the appellant obtained resignations from the workers of the Mill. Immediately, thereafter about a month and a half they had now re-started the Mill. The case of the appellant, on the other hand, was that there was no coersion or fraud. It was a simple case of resignations on the part of the workers. The learned Labour Court, however, did not accept the plea of the appellant and came to the conclusion that the resignations of the workers were due to an impression created by the Management that they were closing the Mill permanently and if the Mill was closed the workers would get no payment of their dues.
3. It was also the case of the Management that the application under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter called the Ordinance), was not maintainable as it was not filed by the Collective Bargaining Agent. Mr. Faqir Mohd, who claims to be the General Secretary of the Union and who filed the application, was admittedly, elected General Secretary on 31st March 1973. It is noteworthy that there is no cross- examination on this point. I would, therefore, take it that Mr. Faqir Mohammad was elected General Secretary in March 1973. In his affidavit, Mr. Faqir Mohammad had stated as under :-- "That I was also a member of Al-Habib Textile Bleaching Mills Employees* Union and was also General Secretary."
4. It is quite possible that the members of the Union on coming to know that the Mill had again started functioning elected Mr. Faqir Mohammad as General Secretary and asked him to file the present application. Here I may note that under section 10 of the Ordinance even in the case of a Union being dissolved or ceasing to exist, so far as the law is concerned the Union continues to exist till its registration is cancelled by (he Registrar under orders of the Labour Court. (1) That the application under section 34 of the Ordinance was not maintainable, as it was not filed by the Collective Bargaining Agent; and (2) That it was not a case of retrenchment within the meaning of Standing Order 14 of the Standing Orders Ordinance. I propose to dispose of these two points separately.
6. So far as the first point is concerned, there is not much force in this contention. Mr. Faqir Mohammad stated that he was elected General Secretary on 31st March 1973. There is nothing in law to forbid electing someone else as General Secretary if the Union exists. Mr. Rahimuddin was the General Secretary of the Union, when the workers tendered their resignations and who apparently was not interested to pursue the matter in Court. The fact that Faqir Mohammad was elected as General Secretary on 31st March 1973 remains un-challenged. I would hold that Mr. Faqir Mohammad, in these circumstances, could file the application under section 34 of the Ordinance, as General Secretary of the Union. In this connection, I may also observe that anything done under pressure or through fraud is bad in law. The members of the Union, though they had resigned but under fraud and misrepresentation. The Union was not dissolved and exists and, therefore, the election of Mr. Faqir Mohammad as General Secretary of the Union is good in law.
7. I am not prepared to accept the second contention of Mr. Shaukat Ali also, as I have come to the conclusion that the workers of the Mill had resigned under misapprehension and wrong impression created by the Management. They got the impression that if they did not resign, they would not be able to get their dues. The Mill, at any rate, was going to close and, therefore, it was best to resign and get their dues. I have been impressed by one circumstance to come to this conclusion. The Mill admittedly, started soon after the resignations given by the workers. Therefore, the resignations tendered by the workers in this circumstance cannot be taken to be willing and voluntary. The Management had managed by a clever device to obtain the resignations of the workers of the factory when it was clearly their intention to terminate their services.
8. For the reasons given above, 1 would dismiss the appeal and maintain the award of the learned Labour Court with the following modification.
9. I find from the application filed under section 34 of the Ordinance that the relief claimed by the respondent was by way of a direction to the appellant to comply with the provisions of Standing Order 14 of the Standing Orders Ordinance. Accordingly I would, therefore, direct that the appellant should employ in place of the workers already employed by it after commencing operation again its former workers in order of seniority in accordance with Standing Order 14 of the Standing Orders Ordinance. Intimation should be sent to the workers in accordance with Standing Order 14 of the Standing Orders Ordinance and those workers who report for duty within seven days from the receipt of the notice will be paid an amount equivalent to their wages computed from the date the appellant started operation again and up to the date the notice under Standing Order 14 of the Standing Orders Ordinance is despatched.