' My this order shall dispose of the application dated 2-11-2001 (No,7A(76) of 2002) filed by the respondent under Order 7 rules 10 and 11, C.P.C. For dismissal/rejection of the Petition No,4A(74) of 2001 filed under section 22-A(8)(g) of I.R.O., 1969 by the petitioners.
2. Brief facts leading to this application are that the petitioners have filed a petition under section 22-A(8)(g) of I.R.O., 1969 against the respondent on 27-8-2001 with the following prayer:-- "The instant petition under section 22-A(8)(g) of I.R.O., 1969 may be accepted and the respondent be directed not to commit any act of unfair labour practice. Further the impugned termination orders be set aside and the petitioners Nos.2 to 11 may be reinstated in their services/cadres with effect from the dates of their terminations with full back-benefits. The respondent-company may also be refrained, restrained and directed not to appoint other persons on the seats/ posts of the petitioners Nos.2 to 11".
3. Notice of this petition was issued to the respondent to file his written statement/parawise comments and also reply to the stay application, but instead of filing the requisite comments/reply, the respondent has filed the instant application for dismissal/rejection of the petition and contended that the Petition No,4A(74) of 2001, has been filed and signed by Mahboob Shah as General Secretary of the Union who has been authorised vide Authority Letter (Page 9 of the file) but the said Authority Letter is of no legal consequence being a document without giving any future obligation, further it had to be attested by two witnesses as required under Article 17 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat, 1984. Thus being a defective document it does not confer any right upon the said person to sign or file or institute any petition, affidavit, stay application or paper relating thereto and accordingly the said petition is liable to be dismissed/returned. It is further contended that the said Authority Letter confers authority upon Mahboob Shah, but the signatory of, the petition, affidavit and stay application is Syed Mahboob-ulHassan. Further the affidavit filed by the petitioners shows that the same has been sworn (page 8 of the file) by Mahboob Shah before the Oath Commissioner who was identified by Syed Naseer Ahmed, Advocate, but no signature of Mahboob Shah are affixed on it. While the affidavit is signed by Syed Mahboob-ul-Hassan. It is next contended that since the petition has been signed by Mahboob Shah, therefore, the petition having been not signed by the aggrieved person is not maintainable. Further the authority conferred by the petitioners upon Mahboob Shah has not been accepted by him, therefore, the authority letter is invalid. Similarly the authority letter does not authorise Mahboob Shah to compromise upon or to withdraw the petition, therefore, the Vakalatnama signed by him is also invalid.
4. It is further contended that no cause of action is made out, therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. The petitioner's case is that services of petitioners Nos.2 to 11 were terminated on 16-4- 2001 and they received all their legal dues. However, later on they were offered the same jobs on temporary basis and were asked to report for interview on 30th May, 2001 but they refused the said offer and demanded their reinstatement from 16-4-2001. On that the respondent-management filled in the said posts through other persons. Now the petitioners have demanded that they should be reinstated and the workers so recruited should be removed from service. It is further contended that since termination has already been affected and all the petitioners had already received all' their legal dues, therefore, if they have any dispute concerning bonus etc. They may refer the matter to a proper Court. There is no question of restraining the respondent from appointing any worker against the said posts. Since work in the whole establishment is already closed, therefore, there is no question of granting any stay order. Regarding the allegation of unfair labour practice, it is contended that neither a single incident of unfair labour practice is given nor a single trade union activity on the part of any of the petitioners has been described. A bald and vague allegation of unfair labour practice without giving any details does not constitute unfair labour practice which is necessary for assuming jurisdiction by this Commission. It is prayed that the petition be dismissed/rejected.
5. Notice of this application was given to the petitioners and the case was fixed for arguments.
6. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties at considerable length and also given my anxious thoughts to the issues involved in the instant application. While justifying filing of the instant application under Order 7, rules 10 and 11, C.P.C.; learned counsel for the applicant/respondent has reiterated the applicant/respondent stand taken in the application and contended that the petitioners vide authority letter (at page 9 of the file) have authorised Mahboob Shah but the petition alongwith all other documents i,e, stay application, affidavit and Vakalatnama are signed by Syed Mahboob-ul-Hassan. He further contended that there is no mentioning in the authority letter that the authority so conferred upon Mahboob Shah has been accepted by him. He further contended that in terms of Article 17 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat 1984, the Authority Letter had to be attested by two witnesses, but the aforesaid authority letter is not attested by two witnesses. He contended that in this view of the matter, the authority letter having legal defects is of no legal effect. He further contended that no cause of action is made out in the petition, and therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed. He further contended that neither a single incident of unfair labour practice is given nor a single trade union activity on the part of the petitioners has been specifically mentioned therein. A bald and vague allegation of unfair labour practice without giving any details does not constitute unfair labour practice which is necessary for assuming jurisdiction by this Commission. He prayed that the petition may be dismissed/rejected.
In support of his contention he sought reliance upon PLD 1985 SC 153, 1987 PLC 358, 1975 PLC 24, 1975 PLC 56, PLD 1996 Lah. 367, PLD 1974 SC 151, 1985 PLC 730, 1980 PLC 105, 1984 PLC 1342 and 2000 SCMR 879.
7. Replying to the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent/applicant as submitted above, learned counsel for the petitioners has strongly opposed the averments made in the application and the arguments advanced by the respondent/applicant's counsel and has strenuously contended that the present application is misuse of process of law, hence the same is liable to be rejected. He contended that Vakalatnama in favour of Syed Nasir Ahmed, Advocate is signed by all the petitioners including Syed Mahboob-ul-Hassan as General Secretary of Ittehad Employees Union V.A. Tech-Voest (MCE GMBH) Brotha Attock. He further contended that the petition and stay application are not only signed by the counsel for the petitioners but also signed by S. Mahboob-ul-Hassan and Muhammad Ayaz. Similarly the affidavit is signed by Muhammad Ayaz and Syed Mahboob-ul-Hassan. He further contended that Mahboob Shah is the nick name of Syed Mahboob-ul-Hassan. In support of his contention he produced a copy of NIC (No,122-58-375380) of Syed Mahboob-ul-Hassan son of Muhammad Ayub and contended that the objections raised by the ' respondent are without any substance and liable to be rejected. He further submitted that provisions with regard to signing and verification of the petition are mere matters of procedure and if a petition/application is not properly signed or verified, in such case the proper course is not to dismiss or reject the petition but to allow the petitioners to removelcorrect the defect as the omission/error is not a fatal defect and can be corrected/removed at any stage. He further contended that where several persons filed a petition, it is sufficient if one of them signs the same with knowledge of the other petitioners. In rebuttal to the objection raised by the respondent/applicant regarding maintainability of the petition and jurisdiction of the Commission, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in para. 7 of the petition, the petitioners have specifically pleaded that they have been victimized on account of their lawful trade union activities which amounts to unfair labour practice on the part of the respondents and since unfair labour practice is a mixed question of law and facts, which can be scanned only after recording evidence of the parties, therefore, it would be premature to decide the question of maintainability of the petition at this stage.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners also contended that the application of the respondents is neither signed nor verified by the respondent. Similarly no such affidavit in support of the said application has been filed by the respondent, thus the application is liable to be rejected on this score alone.
9. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and also examided the record of the case minutely and have come to the conclusion that the law not only permits joinder of several persons as co-petitioners in one petition but also allow the petitioner to remove/correct the defects with regard to the signatures and verification of the petition at any stage. It is a general rule that courts should be lenient in such matters. A perusal of the record would show that Vakalatnama (page.71 of the file) in favour of Syed Nasir Ahmad, Advocate is signed by all the petitioners including Syed Mahboob-ul-Hassan, General Secretary of the Union while the petition is signed by the petitioners Nos.1 and 2 namely Mahboob Shah and Muhammad Ayaz and also by their counsel Syed Nasir Ahmad, Advocate. Mahboob Shah is the nick name of Syed Mahboob-ul-Hassan whose signatures were verified from the signature/affixed on his National Identity Card available on the file. The objections raised by the respondent/applicant with regard to omissions/errors in letter of authority are not fatal defect and can be removed/cured at any stage. The provision with regard to signing and verification of the petition are mere matters of procedure. In this view of the matter, even if the petition is not signed by the petitioners or by a person authorised by them in that behalf and the defect is discovered before the final order, the Court may allow the petitioners to amend the petition by signing the same. It may be submitted that rules of procedure are meant to advance justice and to preserve rights of litigants and are not meant to frustrate the purpose of law and justice. Therefore, all technicalities have to be avoided. Omission/error in letter of Authority or omission of signatures of the petitioners is not a fatal defect and can be cured/removed at any stage as it would not change the nature of the petition.
10. For the reasons aforementioned, that the law leans in favour of adjudication of cases on merits and rules of procedure are principally intended for advancing justice and not for retarding it on technicalities, I am not inclined to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent/applicant to dismiss/reject the petition. Consequently, I allow the petitioners to remove/correct/cure, the defects pointed out in the letter of authority and affix their signatures on the original petition. The petitioners are also allowed to correct the name of Mahboob Shah in the memo. Of the petition. Consequently the petitioners are directed to file amended petition duly corrected and signed by all the petitioners on the next date of hearing. The respondent shall thereafter file their written statement/parawise comments on the main petition.
11. Regarding the objection raised by the respondent/applicant with regard to the maintainability of the petition, it is pertinent to mention here that in para. 7 of the petition. It has been specifically pleaded that the petitioners are being victimised on account of their trade union activities, I, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that the issue of unfair labour practice is, a mixed question of law and facts which can be scanned after recording eviddice of the parties, therefore, it would be premature to give any findings regarding maintainability or otherwise of the petition at this stage. Consequently the objection of the respondent/applicant with regard to the maintainability of the petition being premature at this stage is turned down.
12. In terms of the above observations, the application dated 2--11-2001 filed under Order 7, rules 10 and 11, C.P.C. By the respondent/applicant is disposed of. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.
13. To come up on 26-10-2002 for filing amended petition duly corrected and signed by all the petitioners.