' By a judgment announced on 25-9-1994, the Punjab Labour Court No,4, Faisalabad had directed the Registrar of Trade Unions, to hold fresh election of the union (Employees' Union, Utility Stores Corporation, Faisalabad), under his supervision, within a month. This decision was set aside by this Tribunal on 5-5-1996, on acceptance of a revision petition preferred by the Utility Stores Corporation Employees' Union on 10-10-1994. C.B.A, status of the petitioner union is thus stated to have been restored.
2. This Tribunal, towards the end of the judgment dated 5-5-1996, has directed that the election, by adhering to the schedule, stated to have already been announced, would be held without, further delay. According to the applicants, this direction is being misconstrued by the Registrar, according to his whims, and in a manner so as to accommodate and benefit the members of the rival group, respondents Nos.2 to 4 in the revision petition. Clarification/modification of the aforesaid direction has, therefore, been sought by the applicants, according to whom the Registrar is insisting upon his own interpretation of the operative para. Of the judgment of this Tribunal, and his impartiality has thus become doubtful.
3. Next date for holding the election has been fixed as 14-5-1996. This is being done allegedly on the basis of the list of voters (or members of the union), submitted by the management in as back as 1992, although several members have since left the employment of the Corporation, either voluntarily or on termination of their services, or owing to other factors. 15 days' notice for election is a mandatory requirement, according to the applicants, who state that the Registrar has given only six days for the purpose and this would be in clear violation of the constitution of the union. They desire that they be given some more time for preparation and submission of list of eligible members.
4. In this context, it is to be borne in mind, that this Tribunal has become functus officio, on having announced its judgment on 5-5-1996, finally disposing of the revision petition filed on 10-10-1994 by the applicants. I do not think that the Tribunal can embark upon a fresh exercise in a bid to elucidate or clarify certain contents of the judgment. Manifestly modification or variation of the direction or the mandate about holding the election would now be beyond the province of this forum. Actually, I distinctly recall, I was initially not inclined to interfere with the judgement of the Labour Court, and had only on second thought decided to do so, on a clear understanding given by the parties to the litigation (Including the applicants), that the election as per schedule be held afresh, so that both sides tested their strength and tried their luck, and the labour class was not made to remain without a representative body. Even in the instant application (in para. 12), the petitioner union has expressed its readiness to participate in the election activity "without any delay". One then fails to follow as to what purpose is going to be served, if the exercise of election is again shelved.
5. The Registrar's representative has brought to the notice of this Court an order dated 11-2-1996, passed by the learned Chairman of the N.1.R.C., dismissing in default the petition of the applicants, agreeing with the allegation or assertion of the other side made to the effect that the applicants had been resorting to multiplicity of proceedings and prolonging litigation, by going from one Court to another and obtaining stay orders in succession. The N.I.R.C. Also had made a clear direction to the Registrar to hold the election on completing all the formalities at the earliest.
6. Election scheduled to be held in the year 1994 has persistently been postponed. Ultimately, the N.I.R.C., which had initially issued a stay order, had vacated it on 11-2-1996. Earlier in the year 1995 (on 13-6-1995) both the groups had expressed before the Registrar their agreeability about holding of election on 27-6-1995, but the applicants had then got a stay order, issued by the N.I.R.C., on 26- 6-1995, with the result that election could not be held on the date fixed, i,e, 27-6-1995. The delaying designs, in similar fashion, it. Is urged, are being employed by the applicants and the only object is not to allow the election to be held in foreseeable future. In obedience to the direction of this Tribunal, the office of the Registrar has on 7-5-1996 announced the date of election to be 14-5- 1996, the rest of the exercise having already been undertaken. Representatives of both the groups had affixed their signatures, in token of having duly been notified in that regard. The record of the Registrar bears a clear testimony to it.
7. I am then at a loss to understand as to what ambiguity or obscurity, the decision dated 5-5-1996 rendered by this Tribunal suffers from, and what elaboration or clarification verily is warranted. Well, if it is done, it will amount to changing the complexion of the judgment and altering the crucial direction contained therein, by way of review, there is hardly any room for which in the Labour Laws.
I, would, therefore, reject the application.