FAUJI SUGAR MILLS MAZDOOR UNION, TANDO MUHAMMAD KHAN Versus MUHAMMAD RAMZAN, GENERAL SECRETARY, FAUJI SUGAR MILLS EMPLOYEES' UNION, TANDO MUHAMMAD KHAN , Nadir Khan Yousufzai

DECISION

The order of the Labour Court, Hyderabad, dated 4‑12‑1991 has been challenged by a Revision Application and an appeal was preferred against the same later on. The circumstances, in which the dispute between the parties arose, are as follows.

2. There are three Unions in the Fauji Sugar Mills at Tando Muhammad Khan, namely (1) The Mazdoor Union; (2) the Employees Union and (3) The Labour Union. The first two of these have been at loggershead with each other for a number of years.

3. The elections for the various offices of the Union for a term of two years, were due on 8‑7‑1991. There was a demand from two of the unions for holding secret ballot and the date of the referendum was fixed for 27‑8‑1991. Before this could be held, it appears that 22 out of 23 office‑bearers of the C.B.A. Union had been dismissed on 9‑5‑1991. Applications for their reinstatement, under section 25‑A of the I.R.O. were filed before the Labour Court and it might as well be added here, that on 22‑8‑1991 the aforesaid applications came to be dismissed.

4. The Registrar of Trade Unions upon the dismissal of these workers had excluded them from the Voters' list. He also did not include 19 sweepers in the Voters' list on the ground that they were not members of the Union.

5. The Mazdoor Union filed a Constitutional petition being No.S‑153/91 in the High Court with the prayer that the referendum be postponed till the appeal was filed before the Tribunal on behalf of the dismissed workers. There was also a prayer that sweepers be also included in the list.

6. On 1‑9‑1991 there was an order from the High Court t the referendum be held within 15 days and the names of the 19 sweepers be also included in the list.

7. The referendum was held on 8‑9‑1991 and the Mazdoor Union won therein.

8. The management presented an application before the Labour Court under section 34 of the I.R.O. praying that the Mazdoor Union should not be certified as C.BA. on the ground that the office‑bearers were not eligible as they had been dismissed from their job. There was also an application for stay of the declaration of the said union as the C.BA. The application was dismissed by the Labour Court on 21‑9‑1991, and the same day the Registrar issued the Certificate of being the C.BA. of the Fauji Sugar Mills establishment

9. The Management made an application for the stay of the declaration of the Mazdoor Union as C.BA. in the Constitutional petition which was fixed for hearing on 10‑10‑1991.

10. However this application could not be heard as the Mazdoor Union withdrew the petition which had been filed by them.

11. There was an Internal Election of the Mazdoor Union on 19‑8‑1991 and the result of the change of office‑bearers was conveyed to the Registrar. The change was approved by the latter on 12‑9‑1991.

12. The Employees Union challenged this approval of the change before the Labour Court and also filed an application for injunction.

13. Another Constitutional Petition No. 168/91 was filed and order thereon was that the Mazdoor Union should not be restrained from acting as C.BA. but the negotiations about the Charter of Demands would not be finalised till the decision of the Writ Petition. Thereupon a joint application was made by the parties including the management that the application under section 8(7) of the I.R.O. be disposed of early by the Labour Court. This culminated in impugned order, disposing of both the applications pending before it.

14. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that the dismissed workers were neither entitled to cast their votes nor hold any office of the union. It also found that a body consisting of such dismissed workers was not a lawful body to represent them. The order of the Registrar approving the office‑bearers was set aside and there was a direction issued to him to hold a fresh referendum.

15. This order of the Labour Court was challenged in a Revision Application before this Tribunal, and later on a regular appeal was also filed.

16. Once the appeal was preferred, there was hardly any occasion for the continuance of the Revision Application but it was urged by Syed Fasahat Hussain Rizvi, appearing on their behalf, that the material documents had been filed alongwith the Revision Application, and if it was either withdrawn or dismissed, difficulties might arise about locating the documents. It was therefore allowed to remain on the record. Both the Revision Application and the Appeal will be disposed of by this common order.

17. It was urged that the Labour Court had failed to appreciate that the application under section 8(7) of the I.R.O. was for all intents and purposes an appeal and was thus ;.;.me‑barred. It was also contended that the Labour Court had erred in relying on the case of Muhammad Ali and others v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and others 1984 PLC 1645, as the same was set aside by the Supreme Court in Appeal No. K‑12 of 1984. It was also urged that the election of the Union could not be questioned by another union, and also that the Labour Court had reached an erroneous conclusion, when it held that the. Registrar of Trade Unions had accepted the change of the office‑bearers of Mazdoor Union prior to the direction of the High Court. And much more was said at a considerable length. I am afraid in the light of the view I have taken it will not be necessary to examine these contentions at all.

18. The appellants should have realised that they were taking a big risk by setting up almost all of their dismissed colleagues for the various offices of the Union. It is a trite proposition of law that an Employer is deeply interested in the determination and the fortune of the C.BA. They need each other for the smooth running of the establishment. They had already presented an application before the Labour Court.

19. In my humble opinion, they could continue on in their offices, and things were in order, till the time their appeals against the order of dismissal were pending with the Tribunal‑‑it would be a continuation of the petition in the same way as an appeal on the civil side is considered to be a continuation of the suit. Mere dismissal of a worker by an Employer does not put him beyond his pale. He retains his status as a workman till he is before the Tribunal. But I have come to the conclusion that the appeals praying for reinstatement must fail. The order has been signed and is being announced today. With this decision in the appeals almost the entire strength of the office bearers including the Chairman, President, Secretary and the Members of the Working Committee will consist of rank outsiders, which will be in flagrant violation of the Labour Laws. The result is that the Collective Bargaining Agency has ceased to exist, beyond recall, and there is no way to fill up the void. The fact also remains that the term of its, office will be expiring in the middle of 1993.

20. I have, therefore, y reached the conclusion, though for somewhat different reasons, that fresh elections will be the only way to restore normalcy in the trade union activities of the establishment in question,

21. In the result I would uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal and the revision application.

H.B.T./2113/Lb.S Appeal and Revision dismissed.