' Revision petition is directed against the decision dated 20-9-1995 rendered by the Punjab Labour Court No, 3, Lahore, at Ferozewala, upholding the order dated 31-1-1995, passed by the Registrar of Trade Unions (South Zone), Lahore Region, Lahore, rejecting the election proceedings held by different groups of the C.B.A. Functioning in the factory of the Packages Limited, Lahore, submitted to him for approval. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length.
2. Four groups of the trade union, namely, Karam Bakhsh Group, Muhammad Akbar Group, Tariq Latif Group and Muhammad Afzal Jat Group had approached the Registrar, with a request for according approval to the office-bearers claimed to have been elected in consequence of the elections held by them on different dates. The requests having been turned down, they all, excepting one group, preferred appeals against each other, as also against the Registrar, under section 8(7) of the IRO, 1969, in the Punjab Labour Court No, 2, Lahore, and the appeals were, at certain stage of the proceedings, entrusted to the Punjab Labour Court No,
3. By a single judgment announced on 20-9-1995, the learned Labour Court dismissed all the three appeals and issued a direction to the Registrar of the Trade Unions to hold fresh elections under his supervision, within a month, under intimation to the said Court. Karam Bakhsh and Khalid Javed, pleading to be President and General Secretary of the Packages Workers' Union (registered), preferred the present revision petition, in which the other two factions, namely, Muhammad Akbar Group and Tariq Latif Group, besides the Registrar, were arrayed as the respondents.
3. In the course of hearing of appeal, Mr. Khalid Mian, the then Presiding Officer of the Punjab Labour Court No, 3, Lahore, at Ferozewala recorded a note on 18-4-1995 that the learned counsel for Karam Bakhsh Group had insisted on production of evidence to establish its version and disprove the counter version of his adversaries, although the learned counsel representing the other two groups had suggested that disposal of the appeals was possible on the strength of arguments alone and there was no need to adduce any evidence. All the learned counsel, however, had concurred that the election proceedings be remitted to the Registrar for his decision afresh, so that the opposing groups could substantiate by leading evidence that the proceedings respectively conducted by them were valid and regular. In the alternative, they were shown to have agreed to, holding of a fresh elections under the supervision of the Registrar. The learned Court had left it open to the contestants to decide amongst themselves whether or not to adduce evidence in the Court, before addressing arguments, for which purpose the appeals were adjourned to 21-51995. It was also observed by the Court that as the Evidence Act or the Qanune-Shahadat was stricto senso not applicable, and as the majority view was not in favour of taking down evidence in regular manner, and especially as there was no express prohibition in the statute, in that regard, the parties would be at liberty to place on record requisite data and material, and even certified copies, of the relevant documents, which could be conducive to a correct adjudication by the Court. The Registrar also was asked to place before the Court, the relevant record, so that the same could be considered by the Court, while hearing arguments. Actually, earlier, the petitioners had approached the Labour Court with a prayer that a direction be issued to the Registrar of Trade Unions to sanction approval of the elected office-bearers of the union. The aforesaid application was disposed of on 11-1-1995, and a direction was issued to the Registrar to make a physical enquiry, respecting the election proceedings submitted by all the four groups, and give a clear verdict about the genuineness and validity of the proceedings, by the end of the current month (January, 1995). The Registrar, however, furnished the opinion that all the proceedings were a farce, besides being premature, and merited rejection. Such an order was passed on 31-1-1995, where upon three groups opted to approach the Labour Court, once again, through appeals filed under section 8(7) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, assailing the aforesaid order dated 31-1- 1995, as being illegal and inoperative.
4. The steps taken by the Registrar and efforts made by him, in pursuance of the direction dated 11- 1-1995 of the Labour Court, find narration in the Labour Court's order at pages 7 and 8. The Registrar had come to the conclusion that the concerned groups of, the trade union, as also the management, had displayed an attitude which smacked of positive noncooperation on their part.
The election proceedings were also violative of the provisions of the constitution of the trade union, and did not deserve approval, in the opinion of the Registrar. It may be noted that for taking the exercise to its conclusion, the Registrar had requested the Labour Court to grant extension in time, but such request had been rejected; and the Registrar passed the final order on 31-1-1995. Learned counsel for the respondents in the revision petition maintained that all the groups had submitted in the lower Court that they would not oppose even fresh elections, the matter should have ended ,there, with a direction issued to the Registrar to conduct the elections afresh under his supervision.
It is urged, that the revision petition preferred by the President and the General Secretary of Karam Bakhsh Group of the trade union proceeds on no valid premises and precious time of the Court has been wasted for nothing. Learned counsel for the revision-petitioner has, on the contrary, argued that the so-called consent made known to the Labour Court by the contestants, which finds mention at page 11 of the impugned decision, cannot be construed as consent in the true sense of the term. There are two options having been given by the parties. The proceedings could be despatched to the Registrar for7his decision afresh, or fresh elections all over again could be held by the Registrar under his direct supervision. It is difficult. For anybody, in the circumstances, to ascertain as to which one, the first portion of the suggestion or the second one, tantamount to willingness on the part of all those concerned. It will not be disputed that an incidence of consensus/concurrence or an act of consent is agreeing one course of action in un-ambiguous terms. It would entirely agree with the argument advanced by the learned counsel.
5. It is also urged by the learned counsel for the revision-petitioner, and not without force, that when the learned Labour Court had itself permitted the parties to produce evidence, in any form, and the petitioner (one of the appellants before the Labour Court) had chosen to examine an official of the Postal Department, there was no legal justification for the Court to refuse to record his statement, particularly, when the official was in attendance, alongWith the relevant record. This submission is also not without substance.
6. It is not denied that the Registrar had not paid a visit to the premises and made an enquiry personally or through a responsible subordinate. Learned counsel for the respondents, including the representative of the Registrar, have unsuccessfully endeavoured to convince the Court that the exercise of enquiry did not involve physical inspection of the site, as no purpose would have been served by the officer's visit; he had to examine the record and was not required to look at the faces of the workmen, available in the factory. It, however, cannot be disputed that when there was an express direction made to the effect that the Registrar would make a physical enquiry, such an enquiry could not be said to have been undertaken by the officer on just examining the record, while sitting in his office. He was under a legal obligation to literally abide by the orders of the Court.
He, however, had been asking those having approached him to tender lists of members claimed by the respective groups to have taken part in the alleged elections. When the management furnished a list of the workers/members of the union, their parentage having not been given the description was pronounced to be inadequate, for the object of identification. Beyond any manner of doubt, it may be deduced that the Registrar had not kept the direction of the Court in mind and not cared to comply with the same scrupulously.
7. The Registrar had surprisingly come to the conclusion that the election proceedings were not only bogus but were all premature. A chart of the schedule of elections claimed to have been conducted by the four groups has been given at page 13 of the impugned judgment. The elections had been held in November/December, 1994 by all the four groups, and the proceedings were submitted to the Registrar by Karam Bakhsh Group, two days after their elections, on 8-11-1994, and by the other three groups before mid of December. Last election of the union had been held on 10- 2-1993 and it was approved by the Registrar on 20-2-1993. It follows that even the approval takes some time, and it is a necessary step in the process. One fails to follow as to how has the Registrar said that the stated elections were all premature. The exercise, as is so well known, is spread over quite a few days. Members are notified and a meeting is convened for the commencement of the process. An Election Commissioner is appointed. Applications are invited and a date is given for scrutiny of the nominations, as also for voluntary withdrawal of the same. A date has to be fixed for the actual elections. The proceedings are then laid before the Registrar, who is required to undertake scrutiny and grant or with-hold his approval within 15 days, which decision has also to be conveyed to the concerned people. Obviously, by pressing a button, the entire exercise could not be accomplished. The process has to be begun well in advance and there seems to be no ban on taking a start a month or two before the expiry of the term of the previous office-bearers. The parties have not placed before me any legal provision or practice, making it obligatory for the union to announce the schedule in question and hold the elections by a particular date. The incumbency of the old office-bearers was coming to an end on 9-2-1995, last elections having been held on 10-2-1993, and evidently they would have lost their representative character, after the said date, if the new office-bearers had not been elected before the due date.
8. It appears that the parties having exhibited certain amount of in difference, as has been alleged by the Registrar, and the learned Labour Court having not acceded to the request of the Registrar for extension in time, felt that he had been belittled and this irritated him and induced him to act in an indecent haste and take an unbalanced decision. Instead of undertaking an objective scrutiny, he thought it better to get rid of the task, by hastily writing down a few lines concluding that the elections being premature could not be approved. The order dated 31-1-1995 of the Registrar, judged from any standard, was not a speaking order, what to say of its being a well-reasoned order. No reasons at all were stated, and the only ground given was that the exercise of elections undertaken by all the four groups was premature. The order must be described as an absolutely perfunctory and lacunic, conjectural and whimsical one, having been jotted down in a mechanical and executive fashion, although it was a quasi-judicial function which the Registrar was called upon to perform, and his order should have stated the reasons for taking a well-defined decision.
9. Even the learned Labour Court, despite having recorded a lengthy decision, has, towards the end, jumped to the conclusion, almost in the same manner. At page 14 of the impugned judgment, rules 8 and 12 of the constitution of the trade union have been quoted. Different purposes have been enumerated, for which on any date during the calendar year an annual meeting of the union may be held. It includes election of office-bearers of the executive committee, no dates have been specified for which. Clause (vi)(c) envisages that the date of such a meeting may be extended by one month. It implies that even in the matter of elections such a meeting could be convened, and it could even be shelved or postponed over a period of a month and it thus was not incumbent upon the union to announce the schedule of holding fresh elections a fortnight or two before the expiry of the term. The learned lower Court has, without application of mind, and without discussing the relevant provisions or practice, endorsed the opinion of the Registrar, as if the same was unexceptionable. One fails to follow how were the elections in question premature or violative of the relevant provisions of the statute or those of the Constitution. The Court below is of the view that the Registrar had taken proper steps in conducting the enquiry and his order was based on sound and solid reasons. I am at a loss to understand as to how did the learned lower Court deduce that. It has also been remarked that the attitude of the appellants (before the lower Court), as also that of the management, betrayed mala fides on their part. As I understand, the word 'mala fide' is not exactly contra of the word 'bona fide'; it does not precisely imply lack of 'bona fides' in terms of human behaviour, viz. Mental thinking and physical action, it signifies something more than that; it is a treacherous and A poignant bent of mind, a wholly dishonest disposition, a malicious and base kind of conduct, a manifestly and perniciously ignoble and evil act, shorn of a tradition of honest and noble way of doing a thing, designed to doom or wreck one's adversary, at all costs. Did really all the four groups conduct themselves in that unholy and indiscreet manner? In the opinion of the Court below, because of such conduct of those people, there "objections" and "allegations" were to be taken to be all without substance. Probably the learned Court means to say that their 'assertions' or 'averments' all were invalid and unsound. It is, however, to be noted that they had not levelled any specific allegations or accusations against the Registrar; it was the latter who had done it, as according to him, the union people had held the objections in a farcical and fictitious, nay, in an absolutely irregular and unscrupulous manner, and the same were also premature; and although he has not explicitly said it, one may interpret his tone and tenor as signifying that the kind of activity indulged in by the rival groups, all claiming to be enjoying a representative character, was prone to create workers' unrest and disturbance of industrial peace, and they had all to be snubbed and the tendencies they had exhibited were to be strongly deprecated. When the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court observes that in his view the impugned order passed by the Registrar does not suffer from any illegality, it wasn't passed in excess of jurisdiction, it indeed makes no sense, for no tangible and real reasons have been recorded by the Registrar, soundness whereof could be examined, on any valid premises. As such, it cannot be concluded that it was a sound or well-reasoned order.
10. The impugned decision of the learned lower Court is set aside; and it would also entail rescission of the Registrar's order (dated 31-1-1995) in controversy. The revision petition is accepted. And the case is remanded to the Court below for its decision afresh. The lower Court must insist on compliance of its own direction dated 11-1-1995. The Registrar would conduct an enquiry, not only on thorough appraisal of the entire record, but also by making a physical verification by a visit to the factory. This exercise has to be completed by mid of January, 1996. A report in detail shall be submitted to the Labour Court, which in turn would record evidence, which the parties may like to produce, in a bona fide manner, not with an intent to delay the disposal of the appeals in question.
Documents already available on record, in addition to the material the parties may like to bring on record in a permissible mode, may minutely be scrutinised, whereafter a decision shall be given afresh, although, at the same time, the parties may be persuaded to agree to a more reasonable line of action, namely, holding of elections afresh, rather than indulging in a cumbersome and unending litigation, not conducive to advancement of legitimate interests of the working class.
Appeals shall be disposed of within a maximum period of three months from today, by giving adjournments of shortest possible duration and avoiding all unnecessary adjournments. There shall be no order as to costs of the litigation in this Court.
11. Parties shall appear in the lower Court for further proceedings on 7-12-1995. A copy of she judgment shall be communicated to the Court below, as also to the Registrar Trade Unions, so that no unnecessary delay is caused in the progress of the proceedings at both the planes.