PAKISTAN T&T ALL STAFF UNION and another vs N.I.R.C. and others
This matter arises from a long-standing industrial dispute concerning trade union representation and the holding of a referendum, which has been delayed for approximately fifteen years. The core legal question involves the proper execution of a High Court remand order dated 7-3-1989 directing the National Industrial Relations Commission (N.I.R.C.) to determine the locus standi of a representative to appear for a union after recording evidence. By consent of all learned counsel appearing in the appeals, the Supreme Court disposed of the matter by directing a Full Bench of three members of the N.I.R.C. to hear and finally dispose of the appeal on merits in accordance with the earlier remand order, fixing a specific date for hearing and mandating that the issue of locus standi be determined conclusively regardless of the representative's presence or absence, thereby preventing further dismissals for non-prosecution. The key principle laid down is that remand orders must be strictly complied with and time-sensitive industrial disputes such as union referendums ought to be expedited without procedural delays.
- Whether the National Industrial Relations Commission can dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution when a specific High Court remand order directs a decision on merits regarding locus standi?
- Can a question of locus standi be determined by the National Industrial Relations Commission in the absence of the representative whose standing is in question?
ORDER
1. It appears from the record that an order dated 7-3-1989 in C.P.D350/83 was passed by the High Court remanding the case to N.I.R.C. For decision of the appeal on merits after deciding the question of locus standi of Mr. N.A. Baqi Khan providing him opportunity to show as to how he could SCMR represent a union, by producing evidence. The other side was also directed to rebut such evidence if so wished. The order of remand has not been complied with and after that on two occassions the appeal has been dismissed for non-prosecution on account of failure of Mr. M.A. Baqi Khan' to put in his appearance at the time of hearing. Grievance is made before us that with the prolongation of litigation, the referendum has not been held for last about 15 years. All the learned counsel appearing in these appeals have consented to the following order:- "Full Bench of three members of N.I.R.C. Shall hear the matter in terms of the order of remand dated 7-3-1989 passed by the High Court as mentioned above. For that purpose the date of hearing before N.I.R.C. Is fixed as 4-1-1995. It is directed that question of locus standi shall be determined finally regardless of the fact that whether Mr. Baqi Khan appears or not, represented or not at the time of hearing. It is expected that the matter is to be disposed of as per remand order and shall not be dismissed for non-prosecution. If need be the hearing shall be taken in hand day to day till the matter is finally disposed of."
2. The appeals stand disposed of in the terms indicated above.