Mian Abdul Qayum, Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore has rendered a decision on 27-2-1996, while dealing with an appeal, filed under section 8(7), Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 by Khalaq Mahmood and Zulfiqar Ali against the Registrar of Trade Unions, Lahore Region, Punjab Small Industries Corporation and one Asad Manzoor. Khalaq Mahmood and Zulfiqar Ali do not feel satisfied and have come up in revision to this Court. .
2. The Punjab Small Industries Corporation Employees Union was on 13-8-1985 registered with the Registrar, Trade Unions, Lahore. Elections were held on 2-1-1994 and certain persons, including the petitioners, were elected as office-bearers. Khalaq Mahmood and Zulfiqar Ali were respectively chosen as the President and the Vice-President. A no-confidence motion was carried on 3-7-1994, and, in consequence, certain other persons, such as Asad Manzoor, Muhammad Yousaf and Khuda Bakhsh were elected as the President, Vice-President and joint Secretary, in place of the existing incumbents of these offices. The Registrar on 27-7-1994 approved these proceedings, rejecting the objections raised against the move by Khalaq Mahmood. In appeal filed under section 8(7), I.R.O.
Khalaq Mahmood and Zulfiqar Ali dubbed the no-confidence proceedings as fictitious, bogus and unlawful. Their prayer for suspension of the Registrar's order dated 27-7-1994 was granted by the Labour Court, which was presided over then by an officer, who was in the habit of issuing stay orders, in routine, on entertaining appeals, grievance petitions, etc. The stay order remained intact over a pretty long period. The present Presiding Officer, who is quick in disposal and has also a balanced, sensible and legal approach, ultimately found out a solution to the problem and disposed of the appeal without permitting it to linger on aimlessly. This is perhaps the only permissible and lawful course, available, and he has chosen to adopt, it, by referring to provisions of section 8(7) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
3. Last election was held on 2-1-1994 and the term of to years expired in January, 1996. This is an undisputed fact. The Registrar had accorded approval of the previous election on 17-1-1994. Under the constitution of the Employees Union, elections are to be held after to years. The learned lower Court has aptly observed that election is a valuable right and it has to be exercised by the persons or people concerned at proper the. Complications are bound to crop up, if election is un- necessarily delayed. Such an incidence would actually also run counter to an express Constitutional stipulation. Although new office-bearers had been elected, after a non-confidence move had succeeded against the existing office-bearers, as was claimed by Asad Manzoor, etc., these persons were not allowed to function, as the Labour Court issued a stay order, and the result was that the previous office-bearers, elected on 2-1-1994, continued to hold the office. They have functioned for a period of more than to years; and it is not understandable how and why should they be permitted to hold on. Such an aspiration on their part would be ulterior and mala fide and cannot be treated as a bona fide gesture on their part. To say that the petitioners having approached the Labour Court with a grievance against the validity and tenability of the no- confidence proceedings held on 3-7-1994, a verdict in that regard has to be given, amounts to making a mess of the things. Even if the plea taken up by the petitioners prevails, and it is held that the no --confidence motion dated 3-7-1994 was a nullity in the eye of law, the net result would be that the office-bearers elected, in consequence of the said no-- confidence move, would not be able to perform; and practically they have been debarred from functioning, over a period of little less than to years last, and the petitioners, who claim to have been elected on 2-1-1994, have throughout been functioning in full swing. Well, they cannot be allowed to continue, in that capacity any more, as already said. A fresh election is inevitable.
4. In ground (i.e), para. 3 of the revision petition, the learned counsel for the petitioners has himself said that in such a situation fresh elections are to be held under the supervision of the Registrar.
This is exactly what has been directed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court. The Registrar has been asked to hold fresh elections within a maximum period of to months, under his supervision, in accordance with the relevant rules. Interim order dated 1-8-1994 rendered by the Labour Court on entertaining the appeal under section 8(7) has been recalled, as it could not be allowed to remain intact over an indefinite period. If validity of the no-confidence proceedings claimed to have been undertaken on 3-7-1994 is now determined, it will turn out to be an exercise in futility, is the nature of merely an academic discussion, with no fruitful result. I would endorse the observation made by the learned lower Court in that regard. Revisional jurisdiction being not that vast, and no material irregularity or illegality having been committed by the learned Labour Court in delivering the decision dated 27-2-1996, I would dismiss the revision petition in limine, being devoid of any merit. There shall be no order as to costs.