' Pir Akhtar Hussain Bodla, Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.4, Faisalabad, on 5-8-1996, dismissed Imdad Awan's appeal filed under section 8(7) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969; and he has preferred the present revision petition, under section 38(3)(a) (ibid). The background of the dispute is as follows:-
2. Imdad Awan had filed a similar appeal earlier as well and the same had been disposed of by the same learned Labour Court on 12-11-1995, directing fresh election of the office-bearers of the Crescent Textile Mills Workers' Union, Sargodha Road, Faisalabad, to be held under the supervision of the Registrar of the Trade Unions. That decision, however, was set aside by this Tribunal, while disposing of Imdad Awan's revision petition on 14-3-1996. Rana Talib Hussain, respondent No.2, was the General Secretary of the union. He made a move for amendment in the constitution of the union. General body meeting was held on 21-5-1996, when the necessary amendment in the Articles Nos.6, 11, 13, 14 and 16 of the Constitution was effected and a no-confidence motion was also carried against the Chairman, the President, the Senior Vice-President and Vice-President I and II.
Election of office-bearers against the vacant office of the union was conducted in the same meeting. The proceedings were submitted to the Registrar of the Trade Unions, Faisalabad, respondent No.1, on 30-5-1996, for approval.
3. Imdad Awan made a complaint to the Registrar on 29-5-1996, challenging the genuineness of the aforesaid proceedings dated 21-5-1996. He also made a request for an enquiry. The Registrar had already on 26-5-1996 constituted an Enquiry Committee, comprised of the Assistant Director Labour Welfare-II and the Labour Officer Factories-IV, Faisalabad. The Committee claims to have recorded statements of as many as 553 members of the union, including nine office-bearers, who all authenticated the proceedings dated 21-5-1996, and the report endorsed Rana Talib Hussain's assertion, whereupon the Registrar approved the proceedings and notified the newly-elected office-bearers, being respondents Nos.3 to 7. Main objection raised against the veracity or credibility of the proceedings dated 21-5-1996 is that Rana Talib Hussain had resigned from his office, towards the end of 1995, and was no longer authorised to act as Secretary of the Union, especially when his resignation had been accepted by the union. It was, however, maintained by Rana Talib Hussain, supported by respondents Nos.3 to 7, that he had challenged the alleged event by making an application to Registrar, his plea being that it was all a false and fake claim. Learned Labour Court has consulted the record of the Registrar and come across Talib Hussain's application aforesaid, submitted before the Registrar. Rana Talib Hussain has taken up a dual plea, in this regard. He says that earlier he was General Secretary of the Mazdoor Union of the Mill and he had of course tendered his resignation as General Secretary of the workers Union he had, however, never relinquished his office of. General Secretaryship. The resignation tendered as General Secretary of the Mazdoor Union by Rana Talib Hussain has been placed on record as a document, which I have marked 'A'. According to Rana Talib Hussain, he had resigned as General Secretary of the Mazdoor Union on 2-1-1993 but his opponents had made an interpolation, converting the date to 2-11-1995. Mr. Muhammad Zaman Qureshi, Advocate, in the course of his arguments, has taken up a stiff stand in that regard. According to him, the alteration or manipulation has been effected by Rana Talib Hussain himself. I, however, do not think that it could be done in the manner alleged by Mr. Qureshi, the reason being that even according to Imdad Awan, General Secretary of the workers Union was none else but Rana Talib Hussain, when election of office-bearers on 2-1-1995 had been held for a period of two years, and the office-bearers had to remain in saddle till January, 1997. How could Rana Talib Hussain fabricate or post-date his resignation as having been offered on 2-11-1995 (instead of 2-1-1993). It seems certain that the resignation had actually been tendered on 2-1-1993, when election of the office-bearers of the union was initially held for a period of two years. Obviously, Rana Talib Hussain could not remain a member of two unions simultaneously. If he was a member, as also General Secretary of the Mazdoor Union, he must have opted to stage exit from the fold of the Mazdoor Union, before contesting the election for an office of the Workers Union.
4. There are three unions operating in the set-up, the Crescent Textile Mills, Sargodha Road, Faisalabad. Actual referendum for determination of status of one of the unions as C.B.A. Was going to be held. In recent past, the Registrar had convened a meeting on 1-9-1996 for holding such referendum on 7-9-1996; but by an order dated 8-9-1996 proceedings of the proposed referendum were stayed by this Court. The Registrar had earlier on 30-5-1996 approved the change of the office-bearers, which took place on 21-5-1996, in the general body meeting, convened by the General Secretary, Rana Talib Hussain. This change was also held in abeyance by the same order viz the one made on 8-9-1996 by this Tribunal. There was not much of ado or fuss, as regards the referendum. Imdad Awan is also stated to have made a request in that behalf, by making an application to the Registrar, in November, 1996. That development would indeed ,deal a damaging blow to his stand that having been elected as President of the Workers' Union on 2-1-1995, he was to hold the office for a full term of two years, and the period during which, by virtue of the litigation going on between the parties, he was practically prevented from functioning as the President, was to be accounted for and he be enabled to continue in office actively so long as his two years' term of office was not exhausted. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that Imdad Awan has himself largely been responsible for cessation or suspension of the Workers' Union's activities. He had filed a civil suit in a Civil Court at Faisalabad. The stay order earlier issued in his favour was vacated on 28-11-1995, when the civil suit was also dismissed, and he was also fined to the tune of Rs.1,000. Recently, on 2-9-1996, he had also filed a writ petition in the High Court and by an order rendered on 4-9-1996, the referendum had been stayed. Simultaneously, he preferred the present revision petition and the referendum proceedings got stuck up, in consequence Imdad Awan's own activity, and on his request, on 8-9-1996, as already said.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied on 1992 NLR (TD) 222 and 1980 PLC 540 in which reported cases it has been pronounced that as the law does not postulate any vacuum, referendum proceedings should not get stranded on flimsy and technical grounds, and a move made for holding in abeyance the process must resultantly be discouraged.
6. I find myself inclined, to some extent, in agreeing with the learned counsel for Imdad Awan, petitioner, that his opponents appear to have done everything in undue haste, probably with the blessings of the Registrar. Amendment in the constitution was claimed by Rana Talib Hussain to have been effected on 21-5-1996, when the election was also conducted, and an enquiry by the Registrar was ordered on 26-5-1996. According to Imdad Awan, he was kept in the dark, and when he came to know about the change, he immediately made a move and lodged a complaint with the Registrar, on 29-5-1996. The submission made by the respondents that Imdad Awan had himself not participated in the enquiry proceedings. Proceeds on weaker premises, as the Registrar had finalised everything before 30-5-1996, when he practically approved the amendment in the constitution, as also change of the office-bearers. Election in the year 1995 was held on 2-1-1995, and approval by the Registrar consumed five months and twenty days, as it was at long least accorded on 22-6-1995. In the judgment dated 14-3-1996, delivered by this Tribunal, certain observations have pointedly been made, doubting the transparence or genuineness of the exercise claimed by the other side to have been undertaken, one Shabbir Ahmad then being an activist against Imdad Awan, and he was described as a stooge or a puppet, having been put up by the Mill management proprietorship, with a view to torpedo the cause and welfare of the working class. If, as has been pointed out by the learned lower Court itself, in para. No.2 of the impugned order, the office.-bearers elected on 2-1-1995 had to hold the office till January, 1997, the activity shown by Rana Talib Hussain, in curtailing the term of office to one year, and in holding election afresh in May, 1996, could not be countenanced. It is also to be noted that against this Tribunal's decision dated 14-3-1996, no party had gone to any higher Court. Learned counsel for the revision-petitioner maintains that the entire union has been hijacked by a self-styled General Secretary,.Who has also acted in open defiance of the decision rendered by this Tribunal.
7. The entire controversy, it seems, has, however, assumed the form of only an academic discussion, now that the election to be held in January, 1997 is at hand, and both sides are keen that the election be held so that they can demonstrate their respective strength and try their luck, without remaining in a state of confusion or uncertainty about the identity of actual office-bearers, entitled to operate, control and guide the activities of the union and safeguard the interests of the workmen. The trade unions have to hold their internal elections and this exercise has to be followed by the proceedings to be launched for holding a referendum, without any amount of delay. I would further not waste my energy and time, in examining and determining as to which side has really been erratic and who is the actual sufferer. In ultimate analysis, it is indeed the working class whose cause has suffered a set-back, by reason of the tug of war going on between the rival factions. Although Imdad Awan maintains that he has unlawfully been deprived of his Constitutional entitlement to hold the office continuously and peacefully for a period of two years, he is not really keen to hold on, and is desirous of participation in a fresh election, tp be held at an early date. He is probably conscious of the fact that he has himself been responsible, in certain measure, in demolishing the image of his office and in interrupting the activities of the union.
Imdad's prayer in the revision petition is that the Labour Court's order dated 5-8-1996 be set aside, and the Registrar's order A dated 30-5-1996 be also annulled, and further that he be not prevented from holding his office as President of the Union. But in the course of discussion in this Court, readiness or agreeability has been expressed as regards the new election, followed by the referendum. I would, therefore, give no final verdict respecting validity of the proceedings held on 2.1-5-1996, and would also refrain from commenting conclusively on the merits of the impugned order dated 5-8-1996, passed by the learned Labour Court. It is, however, neither possible nor proper, to accept the revision petition in entirety. With the observations above, it is disposed of, with no order as to costs.
8. Internal elections of the trade unions, operating in the set-up, shall be held by 15-1-1997.
Determination of C.B.A. Through referendum shall then be taken in hand, without any loss of time, by 7-2-1997. The entire exercise shall be truly supervised by the Registrar. .