1. Parties to the revision petition before this Tribunal, and their sequence, are the same, as before the Labour Court, in the petition filed there under section 8(7), Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
By the decision dated 28-11-1995, learned Labour Court No.3, Lahore, at Ferozewala, had dismissed the appeals/applications filed (against an order dated 6-3-1995, passed by the Registrar of Trade Unions, Lahore), separately by to persons, namely Arshad Ali Anjum and Muhammad Haneef Ramay, claiming respectively to be patron-in-Chief and the Secretary-General of the United Labour Union (C.B.A.), State Bank of Pakistan, Lahore. Arshad Ali Anjum has preferred the present revision petition under section 38(3-a), I: R. O.
2. On 19-12-1995, when the revision petition was entertained, on hearing the 1tarned counsel for the petitioner, and was admitted to regular hearing, operation of the Registrar's order dated 6-3-1995 and the Labour Court's order dated 28-11-1995 was suspended. Shortly afterwards, on the same day, Rao Jamshed Ali Khan, respondent No.4, alongwith his counsel, Quraishi Muhammad Hafeez, Advocate made appearance before me, whereupon, on hearing them preliminarily, I passed an order, which I would reproduce below: -- "19-12-1995---Rao Jamshed Ali Khan, respondent No.4, alongwith his counsel, Quraishi Muhammad Hafeez, Advocate, in company of Syed Alamdar Hussain, Patron-in-Chief, appeared in the Court, soon after an order admitting this revision petition was passed. According to them, they had gone to Ferozewala, for appearance in Punjab Labour Court No.3, where Arshad Ali Anjum's own petition moved before the Court for recalling its order dated 28-11-1995 was fixed for hearing. The petitioner opted to absent himself from the Labour Court and instead approached this tribunal by way of the present petition. Smelling some ' foul-play', they rushed to this Court, where they came across Arshad Ali Anjum, who, however, on seeing them staged exit stealthily. They say, they had a mind to bring him before the Court and make their submissions, in his presence. In a most clamorous fashion and in a bitterly grumbling tone, they made the Court aware of abhorrably checkered career of this litigation, making an earnest request for vacation of the stay order. They were advised to make a move in writing.
Learned counsel representing respondent No.4 has drawn the attention of the Court to section 13 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, enumerating functions and powers of Registrar of Trade Unions, including his privilege, to hold an inquiry in regard to affairs of a trade union (election of its office-bearers and its working etc. Not excluded). In particular, it has been urged, with reference to section 38(3-a), Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, that Labour Appellate Tribunal originally did not have revisional powers, and such powers were conferred on it by Ordinance IX of 1977, with insertion of subsection (3-a) under section 38. These powers may be exercised, either on its own motion by the Tribunal, or on a move by the aggrieved party, but no order shall be passed, adversely affecting any person, without giving such person a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The initial order passed by this Tribunal, on admitting the revision petition, it is submitted, will have far-reaching repercussions, inasmuch as the office-bearers elected on as back as 6-3-1994, would be restrained from functioning, and this would ensue, despite the fact that only one person, out of 25 office-bearers of the union, elected in March, 1994, has been arrayed as respondent in the revision petition, being the Secretary-General (Rao Jamshed Ali Khan), Arshad Ali Anjum, petitioner, claiming to be Patron-in---Chief, having purposely kept his counter-part, Syed Alamdar Hussain Shah, out of the arena.
It has been stated at the Bar before me that the petitioner has been moving from one Court to another, without any success. He invoked the jurisdiction of all the Labour Courts at Lahore, the N.I.R.C. At Islamabad, and had recourse to the Honourable High Court, at least four times, having met failure in all forums. On as recently as 14-12-1995, Full Bench of the N.I.R.C. Is stated to .Have set aside the order dated 30-7-1995, rendered earlier by a learned Single Member, N.I.R.C. Who had recalled his own order dated 30-3-1995, calling upon the State Bank to implement the Registrar's order dated 6-3-1995. It is stated that this important development is in the knowledge of the petitioner but he has omitted its mention and has rather distorted a reality---Single Member's order dated 30-7-1995 having been rescinded by the Full Bench---with the result that the Registrar's order dated 6-3-1995 holds the field and has to be acted upon. Even the fact of pendency of the matter in Labour Court No.3, Lahore, at Ferozewala, has been concealed by the petitioner.
If what has been stated before me by the learned counsel for the respondent is correct---and I have no reason to doubt it---it would imply that there has been a diabolic suppression of mass of material facts on the part of the petitioner, who has thus endeavoured to mislead the Court, and has rendered himself ineligible, all the more, to grant of any discretionary relief, on interim scale. I would have heard the petitioner and his learned counsel, in regard to the instant application, made by respondent No.4, before passing any order of consequence; but it is just not possible, as the Court will remain closed from.21-f2-1995 to 8-1-1996, and tomorrow I intend availing of leave, as my real nephew is going to get married.
On hearing respondent No.4's counsel, in absence of the petitioner and his counsel, I proceed to recall my order passed early in the day, in so far as suspension of operation of Registrar's order dated 6-3-1995 and Labour Court's order dated 28-11-1995 is concerned. I must hasten to add that such an order may be revived, if the petitioner is found entitled to it, when the learned counsel for the parties address the Court on 16-1-1996, the date already fixed.
Let a copy of this order be communicated, without delay, to the petitioner/his counsel. "
3. I am not in the habit of such re-capitulations, and I have made departure in this case, as the above order will throw enough of light on the history of the industrial dispute in question and it is almost a resume of the submissions, which learned counsel for respondent No.4, in particular, has made before me in final fashion as well.
4. On 10-10-1994 Arshad Ali Anjum had recourse to the Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, assailing the at of the Registrar in initiating an inquiry into the election of the office-bearers of the union, claimed by Arshad Ali Anjum to have been held on 29-9-1994, and by his rival faction to have been conducted on 22-9-1994. Shortly afterwards, Arshad Ali Anjum also filed a writ petition in the High Court and opted to withdraw the aforesaid petition dated 10-10-1994 on 20-12-1994, as in the meantime the opposite group had also approached the Labour Court, with a request for vacation of the stay order dated 10-10-1994. The writ was ultimately dismissed on 6-3-1995 by Mr. Justice Sharif Hussain Bukhari.
5. Syed Alamdar Hussain Shah, as Patron-in-Chief of the union, invoked the jurisdiction of the N.I.R.C. And Arshad Ali Anjum became a party to the proceedings, in connivance with the petitioner there, according to respondent No.4. The N.I.R.C. Rendered an interim order, which was, however, re- called and the petition was dismissed on 30/31-7-1995. Full Bench of the N.I.R.C. Was then approached, but Arshad Ali Anjum met failure there as well, his cause having been dismissed on 14-12-1995. Another writ petition was filed in the High Court, and it was dismissed by Mr. Justice Ch. Khursheed Ahmad; and the I.C.A also met the same fate. Third writ petition was then filed, and the same was dismissed by Mr. Justice M. Javaid Buttar, with a direction that both the Labour Court and the N.I.R.C. Would dispose of the matters before them within a month. Allegedly, another petition, in the name of one Muhammad Ameen Khan, President of the group of Rao Jamshed Ali Khan, was filed through an Advocate, whom he had never engaged as a counsel. It was later on withdrawn. The present petition under section 8(7) had been filed in the Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, on 12-3-1995. As the learned Presiding Officer of the said Court had unfortunately expired, the petition was withdrawn from there by this Tribunal and made over for disposal to Punjab Labour Court No.3, and especially as the High Court had made a direction on 27-7-1995 about decision of the satire within a month. The said Court has passed the final order on 28-11-1995.
6. Constitution of the union was amended and approved on 16-2-1994. On 17-3-1994 referendum was held and the United Labour Union emerged as victorious. Arsha4 Ali Anjum and Rao Jamshed Ali were elected respectively as the Patron-in-Chief and the General Secretary. Differences developed between the to, with passage of the, and the to groups came to be at war with each other. Rao Jamshed Ali's group held its election on 22-9-1994 and Arshad Ali Anjum's group claimed having done so on 29-9-1994. Rao Jamshed Ali was elected as the General Secretary and Alamdar Hussain of his group as the Patron-in-Chief. Similarly, Arshad Ali Anjum, in the election stated to have been held on 29-9-1995, became Patron-in-Chief and Muhammad Haneef Ramay was elected as the General Secretary as was stated. The proceedings of both these elections were submitted for approval before the Registrar, who ordered an inquiry. As many as 836 members are said to have made their statements. The Registrar had yet to announce his order, concurring with the inquiry report, on 10-10-1994, when Arshad Ali Anjum filed a petition before Labour Court No. 1, and obtained a status quo order, with the result that the Registrar could not render the final order, for about to months and ten days. The petition remained pending in the Labour Court, before it was withdrawn on 20-12-1994, and then the litigation, as already stated, saw so many forums, almost all having been approached by Arshad Ali Anjum. The Registrar on 6-3-1995 passed an order approving election dated 22-9-1994, after the High Court (Mr. Justice Sharif Hussain Bukhari) had dismissed the writ petition, on the same day.
7. It is stated that in the proceedings before the Registrar, Arshad Ali Anjum had also associated himself throughout and had affixed his signatures on all the relevant papers, in token of his participation, and when he realized that the order was going to be against him, he approached the Labour Court, early in the morning on 10-10-1994, and got a stay order. The activity of the union has remained almost suspended throughout this period, by reason of Arshad Ali Anjum having been moving from one forum to another. Last referendum having been held in March, 1994, the next was due in March, 1996; and it is high the that proceedings for a fresh referendum are initiated, at long last, so that the stalemate comes to an end, which development would be conducive to the cause of the workers and their unions, as the tug-of-war going on between the to groups will benefit the establishment or those averse to the welfare of the labour class.
8. Arshad Ali Anjum, in his petition, has not impleaded all the several office-bearers of his own group, as either co-petitioners of respondents, and has not even arrayed his counterpart, Syed Alamdar Hussain Shah, as a correspondent. Except Muhammad Haneef Ramay, none else appears to have sided with Arshad Ali Anjum and seconded his claim of having legitimately conducted an election on 29-9-1994. Registrar's finding is that the election held on 22-9-1994 was a genuine one and the one dated 29-9-1994 was only a farce.
9. In order, to enable him to establish his assertion that the election dated 29-9-1994 was a valid exercise and the election dated 22-9-1994 was a sham or bogus affair, Arshad Ali Anjum was required by the Labour Court to lead evidence. He, however, availed of a number of opportunities for the purpose, but failed to examine a single witness and did not even personally make a statement in the Court. On the crucial occasion, he slipped away to Karachi, as was stated in the Court, and he changed his counsel, thrice at least, the gentlemen being Mr. Muhammad Saeed Ansari, Syed Manzoor Ali Gilani, Mr. Farooq Zaman Qureshi and his Junior Mr. Haroon Mirza. Out of thirteen witnesses, cited by him, only to, Abdul Hameed and Tariq Hassan, were in attendance on the last date fixed by the-Court, but even they were not prepared to make their statements in absence of the senior counsel, as was made known to the Court. This being the position, the Labour Court was constrained to close the evidence of the petitioner, under Order XVII, rule 3, C.P.C.
Proceedings of both the petitions, one filed by Arshad Ali Anjum and the other by Muhammad Haneef Ramay, had been consolidated, but both the petitioners had preferred to stay away. There being no evidence available on record, in support of the averments of the petitioners before the Labour Court, the petitions for lack of proof were dismissed. On legal plane as well, the objections raised against validity of the inquiry conducted and the order passed by the Registrar have been found, and rightly so, to be devoid of force. Registrar, by all means, is empowered to at in the matter, in the manner it was done, and according to the learned counsel for respondent No.4, Registrar's order cannot be challenged in revision, although Labour Court's order could be brought under challenge, and the revision petition to that extent only would be competent, it is so contended. That apart, the at or the order of closure of evidence of the petitioners, passed by the learned lower Court, considered from any angle, is unexceptionable. One fails to follow, what else the petitioners wanted and how they were entitled to seek from the Court further indulgence in the matter of production for their evidence. Almost all the forums have been exhausted by this gentleman; and I think, he should now bow his head before the process of law and agree to holding of referendum; as further delay in the process would be in nobody's interest, neither Arshad Ali Anjum, nor Jamshed Ali Khan, or their groups.
10. Before I close, I would like to comment on an application submitted on 9-10-1996 by Arshad Ali Anjum, with a request that the order dated 19-12-1995 passed by this Court against him be reviewed and re--called, and certain observations or remarks recorded therein be expunged. I had already said, towards the end of the order, that the same was liable to rescission or review and the order passed earlier in the day in favour of Arshad Ali Anjum, on admitting his revision petition, could be revived on hearing both sides, if the utterances against him were found to be incorrect or inapt. Today's judgment, however, leads me to the conclusion that there has been suppression of certain material facts in the revision petition and concealment of incidence of the petitioner having approached different forums must certainly be taken to be something, which could not be approved of or commented by this Court. In any case, if transgression or aggression was made by the other side, the respondent No.4, the petitioner, Arshad Ali Anjum should not take it into heart and should not be made to suffer for it, at the same the. He was after all having recourse to the Labour Court, the N.I.R.C. And the High Court for vindicating his honour as also the righteousness of things his cause in his own estimation, although there was lawful little warrant for having gone to the High Court again and again. This was certainly not in good taste and such practice ought to be deprecated. Now that final verdict by this Hon'ble Tribunal has gone against Arshad Ali Anjum, he cannot possibly ask for revival of the status quo in his favour and rescission of the order vacating the stay, later in the day, on 19-12-1995.
11. The revision petition has no merit and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Referendum having last been held on 17-3-1994 and office bearers of the union having been elected on 22-9- 1994, further delay in the process can no longer be permitted. The election of the union as also the referendum both are due. The Registrar would arrange undertaking both the exercises with the least possible delay, under his direct supervision. Exercise should take about a month to conclude, but it-should not be delayed beyond end of January, 1997.