' Subject-matter of present revision petition is the order dated 23-5-1998, having been rendered by the learned Labour Court, Sargodha (camping at Jhang), while dealing with the petition under section 34, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, filed by the Pak American Fertilizers Limited, Iskanderabad, District Mianwali, against the Employees Union of the concern, and the Registrar, Trade Unions, Sargodha Region, Sargodha. Validity cooperativeness of the aforesaid order has been called in question by the Employees Union and office-bearers thereof.
2. There is only one union functioning in the fertilizer factory. The elections were held on 29-12-1997, and the same were submitted to the Registrar for approval. The employer approached the Labour Court by filing a petition under section 34 (ibid), as already said. The Labour Court restrained the elected union from functioning as C.B.A., by the impugned order rendered on 23-5-1998.
3. Even the last year election, held on 1-1-1997, was approved by the Registrar with much delay on 19-5-1997 (Annexure "A"). For the year 1998, the union had elected the office-bearers in the election held on 29-12-1997 (Annexure "B"). It has not specifically been stated as to when had the concern come up with the petition under section 34 (ibid). Probably, it was filed quite late, after many months, as the preliminary order by the Labour Court was passed on 23-5-1998. For about half a year the union with its elected office-bearers has presumably been in operation. This year's office- bearers are almost the same, who had been elected for the previous year on 1-1-1997 (Annexure "A"). Documents Annexures A/1 to A/5 furnish proof of the fact that the employer and the workers had nominated their representatives as members of the Fair Price Shop Committee, members of the Works Council, members of the Masjid Committee, members of the Market Committee, and members of the Board of Trustees for the Workers Participation Fund of PAFL. For bringing cloth from the Fair Price Shop, an official transport had been provided to the elected office-bearers. That would A in a way operate as stopple against the subsequent posture adopted by the employer, while assailing the validity of the status of the C.B.A.
4. The Union has taken up an express stand, in the revision petition dated 25-6-1998, as also in the reply submitted on 13-7-1998, in response to the employer's application dated 1-7-1998, submitted under section 151, C.P.C. for vacation of the stay order, issued by this Tribunal on 25-6-1998, while entertaining the revision petition. According to the union, the Labour Court's order dated 23-5-1998 is coram non judice and the petition under section 34 moved by the employer is premature, the Registrar not having as yet made any order approving or disapproving the election. The Registrar vide letter dated 30-4-1998 blamed the union for the inability to place before him the requisite records. It was duly responded by the union, vide its letter dated 15-5-1998 (Annexure "A/7"). The Registrar again addressed a letter on 16-5-1998 (Annexure "A/8"), and the needful was done vide letter dated 6-6-1998 (Annexure "A/9"). It is maintained by the learned counsel for the revision- petitioners that the Registrar having not taken any final action in the matter, the election dated 29- 12-1997 must be deemed to have been approved, particularly when the employer himself has been dealing and negotiating with the elected office-bearers of the union. The unusual delay that has been caused in the exercise of approval of the election is allegedly at the instance of the employer and on the Registrar's collaboration with the concern. This must be taken to have occurred with mala fide intentions and ulterior considerations. The necessary record was provided to the Registrar, but he is still in state of inaction. The proprietorship/management of the concern is probably on the look out to usurp the rights of the working class, as grant of bonus, etc. At least it is so submitted by the union people.
5. The revision-petitioners have relied on 1990 PLC 296 (Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh), holding that the Labour Court cannot issue interim injunction restraining the office-bearers of a union from performing their functions, unless and until they are disapproved or the election is cancelled by the Registrar.
6. A fresh direction was issued on 16-5-1998 vide document (Annexure "A/8") by the Registrar, to hold election for the office of the Chairman, having left service under the Golden Handshake Scheme. Document Annexure "A/9" is the communication that was addressed to the Registrar in response. A member of the Executive Committee, Mr. Ghulam Sarwar, was stated to have been elected as the new Chairman by a majority vote.
7. In any case, it is up to the Registrar to take a final decision in the matter, and it is indeed amazing that he has allowed half of the term to elapse and is still double-minded. The new elections are scheduled to be held towards the end of December, for the next year 1999. I would, as such, set aside the Labour Court's order dated 23-5-1998, by accepting the revision petition, although with no order as to costs. The Registrar will finalize the exercise by 31-8-1998, at the latest; and the Labour Court, which is seized of with the employer's petition under section 34, shall also dispose it of finally, by 30-9-1998. The Presiding Officer of the Labour Court will be availing of three weeks summer vacations during the period from 24-7-1998 to 6-9-1998. The Court will proceed with the matter, during the remaining time, by giving adjournments of shortest possible duration and avoiding all unnecessary adjournments, with a view to finalize the hearing of the petition under section 34, by 30-9-1998.
8. A copy of this order may be communicated to the Registrar, Trade Unions, Sargodha Region, Sargodha, and another copy shall be communicated to the learned Labour Court, Sargodha, for compliance.