PLJ 2005 Karachi 21
[Sindh Circuit Hyderabad]
Present: Muhammad Mujibullah Siddiqui, J.
ARMY WELFARE SUGAR MILLS, WORKERS UNION through its
GENERAL SECRETARY--Applicant
versus
REGISTRAR TRADE UNIONS, HYDERABAD and 2
others--Respondents
Labour Revision No. 13 of 2004, decided on 5.5.2004.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)--
----O. 1, R. (10) and O. VII, R. 11--Application
submitted petitioner that respondent be deleted from the array of
parties--Labour Court rejected the application that Complaint was filed by the
Registrar or the representation made by respondent wherein the proposition of
law and authorities of Superior Courts were brought to the knowledge of
Registrar regarding registration of Union and thereafter the Registrar applied
for cancellation of registration of petitioner before Labour Court joining the
respondent also as a party--Ordinarily in case of registration, Registrar and
concerned Union are party but Registrar can move application to the Labour
Court for cancellation either suo moto or information laid before it by the
employer--Since the complaint was filed at the instance of Management,
therefore, Managing authority was necessary party and was rightly joined as
respondent in complaint--Held: No justification for the admission of the labour
revision--Even case of delay in disposed of matter pending before the Labour
Court--No prejudice caused to the applicant with the rejection of application
under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC or no omission of justice has been taken place--Even
all parties filed their affidavit-in-evidence and all of them had been
subjected to cross-examination--No justification for admission of pension
application but shall cause delay in disposal of matter--Dismissal in limine. [Pp. 22, 23 & 24] A, B & C
Mr. Ghulam Sarwar Chandio, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. Masood Ahmad Noorani, Addl. A.G. for Respondent No.
1.
Mr. Mahmood Abdul Ghani, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.
Date of hearing : 5.5.2004.
Order
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 5.2.2004
passed by the learned Labour Court No. VI, Hyderabad in Complaint No. 48/2003
pending before the learned Labour Court.
The petitioner, who is Respondent No. 1 in the complaint
before the learned Labour Court, submitted an application that Respondent No. 2
be deleted from the complaint filed by the Registrar, Trade Unions, for the
reason that the Management was not a necessary party. It was alleged in the
affidavit annexed with the application under Order 1 Rule (10) CPC that the
General Manager of the Army Welfare Sugar Mills (Management) has nothing to do
with the cancellation of registration of the Union and under Section 12 of the
Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 the General Manager of the company was not
required to be impleaded as party. It was further stated in Para 5 of the
affidavit sworn by Mr. Abdul Salam, General Secretary of the petitioner Workers
Union, that only establishment/ company/mills can be impleaded as party,
wherever it is necessary and permissible under the law but in the instant case
neither General Manager nor establishment are necessary parties.
The learned Labour Court dismissed the application with
the observation that the issue was already decided by the Court while passing
order on application under Order 7, Rule (11) CPC.
The copy of order on application under Order 7, Rule (11)
CPC referred to in the impugned order dated 5.3.2004 has been produced along
with the petition as annexure `A/4'. A perusal thereof shows that an
application was submitted on behalf of petitioner on 9.10.2003 praying that the
Respondent No. 2 be deleted from the array of parties. The learned Labour Court
rejected the application vide order dated 19.2.2004. It is observed in the said
order that "the complaint was filed by the Registrar on the representation
made by the Respondent No. 2, wherein the propositions of law and authorities
of superior Courts were brought to the knowledge of Registrar regarding
registration of Union and thereafter the Registrar applied for cancellation of
registration of petitioner before the Labour Court joining the Respondent No. 2
also as a costly". The learned Labour Court further observed that
ordinarily in case of registration of Trade Union or cancellation of
registration the Registrar and the concerned Union are necessary parties and
are to be impleaded but the Registrar can move application to the Labour Court
for cancellation of the registration either suo
moto or on information laid before it by the employer.
With this reference the learned Labour Court examined the issue whether
Management was a necessary party and came to the conclusion that since the
complaint was filed at the instance of Management, therefore, the Management
was necessary party and was rightly joined as Respondent No. 2 in the complaint
filed by the Registrar. It was further observed that the under the new
Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 the Registrar was required to inform the
employer by giving a notice regarding registration of Union and the employer is
deemed to be a necessary party in the proceedings even under the repealed
Statute. With these observations the application under Order 7, Rule (11) CPC
was dismissed.
The petitioner feeling aggrieved with the above order
dated 19.2.2004, filed a revision application before this Court being Labour
Revision Application No. 12/2004. During the course of hearing at Katcha Peshi
stage Mr. Ghulam Sarwar Chandio, advocate, informed a learned single Judge of
this Court that on 8.9.2003 affidavit-in-evidence has been filed by the
Registrar, Trade Union, Hyderabad and the matter was adjourned for cross-examination
of the complainant. The revision application was disposed of with the
observation that in case cross-examination has not been conducted by the
applicant, the Presiding Officer should before hearing arguments on the main
petition allow the applicant to cross-examine the Registrar, Trade Union, whose
affdavit-in-evidence has been placed on record. The applicant was also given
opportunity to produce evidence if so desired. The matter part of the order was
necessitated because Mr. Ghulam Sarwar Chandio, advocate, informed the learned
single Judge that the matter has been posted for arguments on main petition
without giving opportunity of cross-examination to the parties.
Be that as it may, the revision application filed against
the order dated 19.2.2004, whereby the prayer for deleting the Respondent No. 2
from the array of respondents was disposed of.
In the above circumstances this second application under
Order 1 Rule (10) CPC seeking same relief which, was sought in the application
dated 9.10.2003 under the caption, under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC, was uncalled
for.
Mr. Ghulam Sarwar Chandio has submitted that the second
application was submitted under Order 1, Rule (10) CPC, which is the proper
provision of law because the earlier application was submitted under Order 7,
Rule 11 CPC, which was not the correct provision of law. The Courts are
supposed to consider the contents of the application and not the law which is
cited in the application. Mere wrong citation of a provision of law is neither
sufficient for rejection of any application nor has any bearing on the merits
of the case. I find that, notwithstanding, the wrong citation of law in the
application dated 9.10.2003 the prayer in the application was that the
Respondent No. 2 was not a necessary party and may be deleted from the array of
respondents. The learned Labour Court in it's order dated 19.2.2004 has
considered the contention elaborately and has given a finding that in the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the Management was a necessary
party. The order dated 19.2.2004 was assailed in the earlier revision
application No. 12/2004. Although there is nothing in the order of learned
single Judge of this Court dated 23.2.2004 that the revision application was
not admitted for the reason that the application dated 9.10.2003 was shown to
have been submitted under Order 7, Rule (11) CPC, but Mr. Ghulam Sarwar Chandio
states that the earlier revision application was disposed of for the reason
that the application ought to have been submitted under Order 1 Rule (10) CPC.
I do not find any such observation in the order of learned single Judge of this
Court dated 23.2.2004.
I am of the opinion that second round of litigation was
uncalled for.
coming to the merits, I find that no prejudice has been
caused to the applicant with the rejection of application under Order 1, Rule
(10) CPC. I have specifically asked Mr. Ghulam Sarwar Chandio, learned Counsel
for the applicant, to show as to what prejudice has been caused to the
applicant or what is the miscarriage of justice which has taken place. The
learned Counsel is not able to show any such prejudice or miscarriage of
justice caused to the applicant. Mr. Mahmood Abdul Ghani, who is appearing
before the Labour Court also, has stated that all the parties have filed their
affidavit-in-evidence and all of them have been subjected to cross-examination
including the Registrar, Trade Union and now the matter has been fixed for
final arguments on 11.5.2004. Thus the earlier directions contained in the
order dated 23.2.2004 have been complied with.
At this stage I do not find any justification for
admission of this revision application, which shall cause delay in the disposal
of matter pending before the Labour Court. The revision application is dismissed
in limine along with the listed application.
(N.T.) Application dismissed
No comments:
Post a Comment