Kot Addu

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

W.P. No._____________/2001

Kot Addu Power Co. Ltd. Kot Addu, District Muzaffargarh, through its Factory Manager, Nisar Asim. Petitioner VERSUS 1. Registrar of Trade Union, Dera Ghazi Khan Region, D. G. Khan. 2. Al-Takbeer KAPCO employees Union, GTPS, Kot Addu. 3. Al-Barq KAPCO employees Union, GTPS, Kot Addu. 4. Al-Kasib KAPCO employees Union, GTPS, Kot Addu. 5. KAPCO Paigham Labour Union, Kot Addu. 6. Pakistan WAPDA Hydro-electric Central Labour Union, GTPS, Kot Addu. Respondents

Writ Petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.

Respectfully Sheweth: 1. That the petitioner is nominated Factory Manger, under Factories Act, 1934 of Kot Addu Power Company Ltd. Kot Addu, and is competent to file the above titled writ petition.

2. That respondent No. 1 is public functionary whereas respondents No. 2 to 6 are registered Trade Unions in relation to Kot Addu Power Company establishment. 3. That the respondent No. 2 moved an application under section 22 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, for holding secret ballet in the writ petitioner establishment. Besides requiring the respondents No. 2 to 6 to give the membership of their workers, respondent No. 1 vide letter dated 13.3.2001 also asked the petitioner to furnish a list of workers of the establishment. Copy of the said letter is attached as Annex “A”. In compliance, the petitioner furnished the list of workers but excluded therefrom the members of Supervisory Staff including Foremen, Assistant Foremen, Supervisors and Sub-Engineers. Copy of list of 628 workmen submitted by the petitioner establishment is attached as Annex “B”. 4. That the respondents No. 2 to 6 also submitted the lists of their members wherein names of Supervisors, Foremen, Assistant Foremen and Sub-Engineers were included. The respondent No. 1 insisted upon the inclusion of such staff in the list of voters for the purpose of secret ballet but the petitioner was reluctant to do so. On instructions of respondent No. 1 the petitioner submitted the list of Supervisory Staff of 54 employees stating their job description. The petitioner also raised objection to the effect that they cannot become members of the Trade Unions and cannot participate in the secret ballot as they are not workmen under the provision of section 2 (XXVIII) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Copies of letter of objection at Annex “C”, job description of employees working in Supervisory capacity at Annex “B” and list of 54 employees working in Supervisory capacity at Annex “E”. 5. That a meeting was held on 9.4.2001 in the office of respondent No. 1, which was participated by the petitioner and contesting trade unions and was adjourned for 11.4.2001.

6. That on 11.4.2001, the respondent No. 1 without taking into consideration the law, included the 54 employees of KAPCO working in supervisory capacity in the voter list by passing a short order dated 11.4.2001, copy at Annex “F” and finalised the voter list, wherein total voters were shown 684, copy of voter list at Annex “G”. 7. That the present writ petitioner filed a writ petition No. 2998/2001 wherein illegality of order dated 11.4.2001 (Annex “F”) was assailed before this Hon’ble Court. The respondent No. 4 M/s Al-Kasib KAPCO Employees Union also filed a W.P. No. 2898/2001 wherein main contention of the petitioner was that on the application of Union for holding up Referendum, respondent No. 1 did not meat the requirement of law U/s 22 of I.R.O. Both the above mentioned writ petition were disposed of by this Hon’ble Court by a Common Order dated 25.4.2001. 8. That as per directions of this Hon’ble Court, the respondent No. 1 initiated fresh proceedings for holding up referendum in KAPCO and a meeting of the Trade Union and Management was held on 27.4.2001 and adjourned for 28.4.2001, copy of proceedings is at Annex “H”. The next meeting was held on 28.4.2001 wherein the respondent No. 1 considered the objections and view point of the Trade Union as well as of the Management. Prior to holding up meeting, respondent No. 1 visited the Kot Addu Power Plant at Kot Addu and interviewed the Senior Engineers of KAPCO in order to get knowledge about the duties of the Supervisors. On 28.4.2001, the respondent No. 1 decided the objections of the Trade Unions and Management, he further decided to hold referendum on 2.5.2001. Copy of Minutes of Common Meeting Referendum KAPCO dated 28.4.2001 is at Annex “J”. 9. That the petitioner moved objections before respondent No. 1 regarding exclusion of Supervisory Staff from the Voter List. Copy of objections is at Annex “K”. The respondent No. 1 decided the issue of Supervisory Staff vide order dated

27.4.2001. Copy at Annex “L”. As per aforesaid order, the respondent No. 1 excluded 9 Foremen of the KAPCO, declaring them as Officers and ordered to delete them from the Voters List at Serial No. 636, 637, 638, 643, 645, 648, 650, 652 and 653 (copy of voters list at Annex “F”). It is pertinent to mention here that the respondent No. 1 did not prepare a fresh voters list as per order of this Hon’ble Court, rather, amended the old voters list prepared on 11.4.2001. 10.That the impugned order dated 27.4.2001 is violative of order dated 25.4.2001 passed by this Hon’ble Court, (copy at Annex “M”)

which

is

illegal,

ultra-vires,

without

lawful

authority/jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside inter alia on the following: GROUNDS a)

That the respondent No. 1 did not perform his duties regarding verification of voters and preparation of voters list as per section 22 of I.R.O. 1969.

b)

That vide impugned order dated 27.4.2001, respondent No. 1 declared 9 Foremen to be officers while the remaining

45

Foremen,

Assistant

Foremen

&

Supervisors, etc. as workmen on the basis of his interview with the Senior Engineers of KAPCO Kot Addu Power Co. From the perusal of the impugned order dated 27.4.2001, it becomes crystal clear that the duties which are being performed by other 45 employees are the same as those of 9 employees who were excluded from the voters list. From the impugned order, it is also clear that aforesaid 45 employees do not perform manual or clerical job, which may bring them within the ambit of workman as defined in section 2 (xxviii) of I.R.O. 1969. As such, the impugned order passed by the respondent No. 1 in slip-shod manner is

totally against the provisions of I.R.O. 1969 and is based on malafide. c)

That from their perusal of the impugned order 27.4.2001, it appears that during interview with the Senior Engineers, it was cleared to respondent No. 1 that disputed 54 employees perform the duties of Supervisory Nature, but the respondent No. 1 illegally interpreted that the 45 employees do not perform the duties of Supervisory Nature, so, they are workmen and the other 9 employees whose duties are also on the same footing, declared them as Officers.

d)

That the duties performed by above mentioned 45 persons are purely of supervisory nature and did not involve any manual or clerical job but requires application of mind and supervision of work done by his sub-ordinates. Manual or clerical duties are ancillary and incidental to their main job and as such these 45 persons are not at all workmen, cannot become members of the trade union and consequently take part in secret ballet.

e)

That the respondent No. 1 failed to appreciate law laid down in section 2 (xxviii) of I.R.O., 1969. The legislature has created different categories of employees who will be excluded from the definition of work if they are working in capacity shown in Section 2 (xxviii) (a) & (b) of I.R.O. 1969. The excluded categories are as under: i)

who is employed mainly in Managerial capacity [section 2 (xxviii) (a)]; or

ii)

who is employed mainly in an administrative capacity [section 2 (xxviii) (a)]; or

iii)

who being employed in a supervisory capacity draws wages exceeding Rs. 800 per month [section 2 (xxviii) (b)]; or

iv)

who performs either because of the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions of mainly a managerial nature [section 2 (xxviii) (b)]

These four categories envisage four different positions and different nature of work and in the present case, duties performed by above-mentioned 45 persons fall within the ambit of category No. (iii). An employ performing supervisory job and drawing salary of rupees more than 800/- so the contention taken by the respondent No. 1 in the impugned order is devoid of force.

f)

That the respondent No. 1 did not take into consideration/distinguish the objections raised by the present petitioner regarding exclusion of supervisory staff from the voters list and also did not bring on record the view point taken by the petitioner.

g)

That in the field of labour legislation an employee is supervisor who recommends appointment, action against

unsuitable

employees,

criticising

or

commenting on their work, fixing their duties. In our case all these ingredients are available in job description which respondent No. 1 did not touch and pass his order in slip-shod manner. The order passed by the respondent No. 1 is against the spirit of law. Powers of interpretation are not available to him, therefore, the order is nullity in the eyes of law.

h)

That the respondent No. 1 admitted the disputed 45 employees

of

the

petitioner’s

establishment

as

supervisors, but held them as workmen, eligible for casting the vote in secret ballot and put their names in the voters list. The decision of respondent No. 1 is against law.

i)

That in case the order dated 27.4.2001 of respondent No. 1 remained in field, it will adversely effect on secret ballot being held on 2.5.2001 as aforesaid order will vitiate the entire referendum proceeding as supervisors are included in the voter list prepared by respondent No. 1 who are not at all workman and cannot take part in trade union activities. Therefore, it is very much appropriate in the circumstances of the case that

names

of

the

45

supervisors

may

be

excluded/deleted from the voter list prepared by the respondent No. 1.

8.

That there is no alternate, adequate and efficacious remedy available to the petitioner except to invoke the extra-ordinary Constitutional jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. Hence, this petition.

In view of above, it is respectfully prayed that writ petition in hand may very kindly be accepted, impugned order dated 27.4.2001 passed by the respondent No. 1 may graciously be declared as illegal, passed without lawful authority and jurisdiction and may very kindly be set aside being against the provisions of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and voter list prepared by the respondent No. 1, to the extent of disputed 45 employees may very kindly be set aside.

It is further prayed that the respondent No. 1 may very kindly be directed to exclude the names of disputed 45 employees falling at Serial No. 630 to 635, 639 to 642, 644, 646, 647, 649, 651, 653 and 655 to 683 from the voters list (Annex “F”) being Supervisors and they may very kindly be excluded from the voters list for all purposes and ceased to be members of any Trade Union. It is further prayed that meanwhile operation of the voter list prepared on 27.4.2001 by the respondent No. 1 to the extent of 45 supervisors may very kindly be suspended and operation of the impugned order dated 27.4.2001 may also very kindly be suspended. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit, may please be extended in the favour of petitioners to meet the ends of justice. Humble Petitioner, Dated: ___________

CERTIFICATE: -

Through: -

Certified that as per instructions of our client, W.P. No. 2998/2001 on the subject matter was filed earlier, which was disposed of vide order dated

Riaz-u-Hassan, Muhammad Amin Malik, Advocates High Court 38-Muhammadan Block, District Courts, Multan.

25.4.2001. IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, Advocate MULTAN.

In re: C.M. No. _____________/2001 In

W.P. No.____________/2001 Kot Addu Power Co.

Vs.

Registrar Trade Union etc.

Application under section 151 C.P.C. for the grant of Stay Orders. The applicant respectfully sheweth as under: 1. That the above captioned Writ Petition has been filed before this August Court. 2. That the contents of the Writ Petition should be considered as part and parcel of this application. 3. That the Petitioner has a good prima facie case. 4. That the respondent No. 1 is bent upon to implement the voter list which includes supervisory staff and entire secret ballot proceeding will be nullity in the eyes of law as such petitioner will suffer an irreparable loss. 5. That the balance of convenience lies with the applicant. Affidavit is attached. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that meanwhile operation of the voters list prepared on 27.4.2001 by the respondent No. 1 to the extent of 45 supervisors may kindly be suspended and operation of the impugned order dated 27.4.2001 my also very kindly be suspended till final decision of the above titled writ petition. Humble Applicant Dated: __________ (Nisar Asim) Through: Riaz-u-Hassan, Muhammad Amin Malik, Advocates High Court 38-Muhammadan Block, District Courts, Multan. IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

In re: C.M. No. _____________/2001

In W.P. No.____________/2001 Kot Addu Power Co.

Vs.

Registrar Trade Union etc.

STAY APPLICATION.

AFFIDAVIT of: Nisar Asim Factory Manager, Kot Addu Power Co. Ltd. Kot Addu, District Muzaffargarh.

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the above-mentioned application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been kept concealed thereto.

DEPONENT Verification: Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day of April 2001 that the contents of this affidavit are true & correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. DEPONENT IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

W.P. No.____________/2001

Kot Addu Power Co.

Vs.

Registrar Trade Union etc.

AFFIDAVIT of: Nisar Asim Factory Manager, Kot Addu Power Co. Ltd. Kot Addu, District Muzaffargarh.

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the abovementioned petition are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been kept concealed thereto. DEPONENT Verification: Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day of April 2001 that the contents of this affidavit are true & correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

DEPONENT

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

In Re: C.M. No. _____________/2001 In W.P. No.____________/2001 Kot Addu Power Co.

Vs.

Registrar Trade Union etc.

APPLICATION FOR DISPENSING WITH THE FILING OF CERTIFIED COPIES OF ANNEXURES. =========================================

Respectfully Sheweth:That certified copies of Annexures “A to L” are not available as the same have not been provided by the respondent

No.

1

despite

of

request.

However,

uncertified/photo state copies of the same have been annexed with the petition, which are true copies of original documents. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble court may please dispense with the filing of aforesaid copies of documents. APPLICANT Dated: __________ Through: Riaz-u-Hassan, Muhammad Amin Malik, Advocates High Court 38-Muhammadan Block, District Courts, Multan. IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

In Re: C.M. No. _____________/2001 In W.P. No.____________/2001 Kot Addu Power Co.

Vs.

Registrar Trade Union etc.

Dispensation Application. AFFIDAVIT of: Nisar Asim Factory Manager, Kot Addu Power Co. Ltd. Kot Addu, District Muzaffargarh.

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the above-mentioned application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been kept concealed thereto. DEPONENT

Verification: Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day of April 2001 that the contents of this affidavit are true & correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. DEPONENT IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN. W.P. No.____________/2001 Kot Addu Power Co.

Vs.

Registrar Trade Union etc.

INDEX S. No. NAME OF DOCUMENTS

ANNEXES PAGES

1

Urgent Form

2

Stamp Paper worth Rs. 500/-

3

Writ Petition.

1

4

Affidavit

9

5

Copy of the letter dated 13.3.2001.

A

10

6

Copy of list of 628 workmen.

B

12

7

Copies of letter of objection,

C

52

8

Copy of letter of job description.

D

56

9

Copy of list of 54 employees (supervisors etc.) Copy of order dated 11.4.2001.

E

58

F

62

Copy of voter list prepared by respondent No. 1. Copy of proceedings dated 27.4.2001.

G

64

H

122

Copy of Minutes of common meeting dated 28.4.2001. Copy of objection dated 27.4.2001.

J

132

K

140

L

144

M

172

10 11 12 13 14 15

17

Copy of IMPUGNED ORDER dated 27.4.2001. Copy of order dated 27.4.2001 of this Hon’ble Court. Dispensation Application.

18

Affidavit.

178

19

Application U/s 151 C.P.C.

180

20

Affidavit.

182

21

Power of Attorney.

184

16

176

PETITIONER Dated: ____________ Through: Riaz-u-Hassan, Muhammad Amin Malik, Advocates High Court 38-Muhammadan Block, District Courts, Multan. IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

I.C.A. No. _________/2001 In W.P. No. 3474/ 2001 Kot Addu Power Co. Ltd. Kot Addu, District Muzaffargarh, through its Factory Manager, Nisar Asim. Appellant VERSUS 1. Registrar of Trade Union, Dera Ghazi Khan Region, D. G. Khan. 2. Al-Takbeer KAPCO employees Union, GTPS, Kot Addu. 3. Al-Barq KAPCO employees Union, GTPS, Kot Addu. 4. Al-Kasib KAPCO employees Union, GTPS, Kot Addu. 5. KAPCO Paigham Labour Union, Kot Addu. 6. Pakistan WAPDA Hydro-electric Central Labour Union, GTPS, Kot Addu. Respondents INTRA–COURT APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 2.5.2001 PASSED BY MR. JUSTICE DR. MUNIR AHMAD MUGHAL LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE, MULTAN BENCH, IN W.P. NO. 3474/2001.

Respectfully Sheweth: 1.

That the brief recital of the facts giving rise to this I.C.A. are that respondent No. 2 moved a application under section 22 of I.R.O. 1969 for holding secret ballot before respondent No. 1 in the petitioner/appellant’s establishment. Besides requiring the respondents No. 2 to 6 to give the membership of their workers, respondent No. 1 also asked the petitioner to furnish the list of workers of establishment (Copy Annex “A”, page 10). In compliance, the petitioner furnished the list of 628 workmen but excluded therefrom the members of supervisory staff performing duties of supervisory nature including

Foremen, Assistant Foremen, Supervisors and Sub-Engineers, (copy at Annex “B”, page 12) 2.

That the respondents No. 2 to 6 also submitted the list of their membership, wherein names of Supervisors, Foremen, Assistant Foremen, Sub-engineers were included. The respondent No. 1 insisted upon the appellant to provide the list of supervisory staff and as such list of supervisory staff of 54 employees was given to respondent No. 1 along-with objections and job descriptions of these 54 employees working in supervisory category. (Copy is Annex “E”, page 58).

3.

That the respondent No. 1 without taking into consideration the law included, the 54 employees working in supervisory category in voter list by passing a short order dated 11.4.2001 (copy at Annex “F”, page 62) and finalized the voter list, wherein total voters were shown 684 (copy at Annex “G”, page 64). Aggrieved against this order of the respondent No. 1, the petitioner/appellant filed a writ petition bearing No. 2998/2001, wherein aforesaid order was assailed and the main contention of the petitioner/appellant was that supervisory staff performing duties of supervisory nature cannot be included in the voter list being not workmen. The said writ petition was disposed of with direction to decide the issue of supervisory staff and also the date for holding of the secret ballot was announced (copy at Annex “M”, page 172). In compliance thereto, the respondent No. 1 held an enquiry and out of 54 supervisors of petitioner/appellant’s company declared 9 to be ineligible to be voter in secret ballot on the ground of not being workmen. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner/appellant preferred the above cited W.P. No. 3474/2001, praying therein that all the supervisory staff comprising of 54 supervisors should be excluded from the voters list and not the 9. The prayer was partly allowed by holding that only employees placed in 17 grade should be excluded in secret ballot and not whole the 54 employees,

vide the order dated 2.5.2001 (copy at Annex “A”). As a result of that 8 more employees were declared officers of 17 grade and in-eligible to caste vote in the secret ballot. Remaining 37 employees were allowed to participate in the secret ballot. 4.

That the petitioner/appellant assails the said order of the Single Judge in Chamber dated 2.5.2001. interalia on the following: GROUNDS a)

That the Hon’ble Judge in chamber failed to appreciate that respondent No. 1 did not perform his duties regarding preparation and verification of voter list for holding secret ballot under section 22 of I.R.O. 1969, and included in the list Supervisory Staff who have been excluded from the definition of workmen as given under section 2 (xxviii) of I.R.O. 1969.

b)

That the Hon’ble Judge did not also appreciate the law laid down on this issue. The legislature has created different categories of employees who will be excluded from the definition of work if they are working in capacity shown in Section 2 (xxviii) (a) & (b) of I.R.O. 1969. The excluded categories are as under: i)

who is employed mainly in Managerial capacity [section 2 (xxviii) (a)]; or

ii)

who is employed mainly in an administrative capacity [section 2 (xxviii) (a)]; or

iii)

who being employed in a supervisory capacity draws wages exceeding Rs. 800 per month [section 2 (xxviii) (b)]; or

v)

who performs either because of the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the

powers vested in him, functions of mainly a managerial nature [section 2 (xxviii) (b)] These four categories envisage four different positions and different nature of work and in the present case, duties performed by above-mentioned 54 persons fall within the ambit of category No. (iii). An employ performing job of supervisory nature does not fall within the definition of workman as stipulated in proviso (b) 2(xxviii) of I.R.O. 1969. c)

That the enquiry held by the respondent No. 1, which is annexed as “L”, clear cut shows that all the 54 persons were employed in supervisory capacity. This aspect was also not kept in view by the Hon’ble Judge in chamber, while passing the order.

d)

That the disputed employees included in the voters list whose names along-with salary are given in the list appended as Annex “E”, page 58, in W.P. No. 3474/2001, are not at all workmen but they having been employed in supervisory capacity, draw wages more than 800/- per month, on the other hand, they are drawing wages to the tune of Rs. 8,000/- per month to R.s 22,000/- per month.

e)

That in the field of labour legislation, an employee is a supervisor who recommends the leave, action against unsuitable employees, criticizing or commenting on their work, fixing their duties, and putting them on over time. In our case, all these ingredients are available in job description which was not taken into consideration and as such order passed is against the spirit of law. In view of the above, it is respectfully prayed that the above titled I.C.A. may graciously be accepted and the impugned judgment dated 2.5.2001 passed by the learned Judge in Chamber may kindly be set aside to the extent of remaining/disputed 37 employees KAPCO who have not been declared supervisors as per 2

(xxviii) of I.R.O. and W.P. No. 3474/2001 partially dismissed may very kindly be allowed. It is further prayed that 37 disputed employees of KAPCO may kindly be declared supervisors who are working in supervisory capacity as per clause 2 (xxviii) (b) of I.R.O. 1969. Respondent No. 1 may kindly be directed to exclude the names of disputed 37 supervisors from the voter list meant for Secret Ballot for all times to come. It is further prayed that respondents No. 1 to 6 be directed to delete from their record membership/officer bearship of above mentioned supervisory staff for all intents and purposes. Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit, may kindly be extended towards the petitioner to meet the ends of justice. Humble Appellant/Petitioner

(NISAR ASIM)

Through: Riaz-ul-Hassan, C.C. No. 20039 Muhammad Amin Malik C.C. No. 20038 Advocates High Court, 38-Muhammadan Block, District Court, Multan. Certificate: Certified that as per instructions of the client, this is the first appeal on the subject matter. No such appeal has earlier been filed. Advocate IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

I.C.A. No. _________/2001 In W.P. No. 3474/ 2001

Kot Addu Power Co. Ltd. Kot Addu, District Muzaffargarh, through its Factory Manager, Nisar Asim. VS Registrar of Trade Union, Dera Ghazi Khan Region, D. G. Khan & others. AFFIDAVIT of: Nisar Asim Factory Manager, Kot Addu Power Co. Ltd. Kot Addu, District Muzaffargarh. I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the abovementioned Intra-Court Appeal are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been kept concealed thereto. DEPONENT

Verification: Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day of May 2001 that the contents of this affidavit are true & correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

DEPONENT

Before the Hon’ble Chairman National Industrial Relations Commission, Specified Authority under Essential Service Maintenance Act, 1952. Petition No. 18 (1) of 2000 Petition U/s 6 of Pakistan Essential Services Act, 1952.

Application for impleading Al-Takbeer KAPCO employees Union GTPS, Kot Addu, as necessary Party. Respectfully Sheweth: 1. That the above titled petition is pending adjudication and is fixed for 15.5.2001. 2. That respondent No. 1 was collective bargaining agent in relation to petitioner’s establishment. 3. That as a result of secret ballot held on 2.5.2001 the said respondent has lost his status of collective bargaining agent and is no more representative of workmen employed in the petitioner’s establishment. 4. That the new trade union in the name and style of Al-Takbeer KAPCO employees union GTPS, Kot Addu has been certified as collective bargaining agent in terms of section 22 (2) of I.R.O. 1969 and is legally competent to represent workmen of establishment in all the pending proceedings. Copy of Certificate issued by the Registrar Trade Union, certifying the above union as collective bargaining agent is Annex “A”. Affidavit is attached. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the application may kindly be accepted and new trade union in the name and style of Al-Takbeer KAPCO employees union GTPS, Kot Addu may kindly be impleaded as respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 1 may kindly be deleted being no more collective bargaining agent of the establishment. Humble Petitioner/Applicant Dated: ________ Kot Addu Power Co. Through its Nominated Factory Manager, Nisar Asim Through: RIAZ-UL-HASSAN, Advocate Before the Hon’ble Chairman National Industrial Relations Commission, Specified Authority under Essential Service Maintenance Act, 1952. Petition No. 18 (1) of 2000 Petition U/s 6 of Pakistan Essential Services Act, 1952.

Application for impleading Al-Takbeer KAPCO employees Union GTPS, Kot Addu, as necessary Party.

AFFIDAVIT of: Nisar Asim Factory Manager, Kot Addu Power Co. Ltd. Kot Addu, District Muzaffargarh.

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the above-mentioned application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been kept concealed thereto. DEPONENT

Verification: Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day of May 2001 that the contents of this affidavit are true & correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

DEPONENT

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

C.M. No. ______/2002 In I.C.A. No.105/2001 In W.P. No. 3474/ 2001 Kot Addu Power Co. Ltd. Kot Addu, District Muzaffargarh, through its Factory Manager, Mohtashim Aftab. VS Registrar of Trade Union, Dera Ghazi Khan Region, D. G. Khan & others.

Application for disposal/withdrawal of case on the basis of compromise.

Respectfully Sheweth: 1.

That afore-said Intra Court Appeal is pending adjudication before this Hon’ble Court.

2.

That the appellant and respondent No. 2 who is a collective bargaining agent in the establishment, have amicably concluded settlement between them.

3.

That the parties have agreed to withdraw the aforesaid Intra Court Appeal on the basis of compromise, which is attached as Annex “A”. In view of the above, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to dispose of the above-titled Intra Court Appeal in the light of the compromise.

Humble respondent No. 2,

(Asif Chishti) General Secretary Al-Takbeer Union (CBA)

Humble Appellant,

(Mohtashim Aftab) Factory Manager, Kot Addu Power Company.

Dated: ________ Through: Qamruz Zaman Butt, Advocate

Through: Riaz-ul-Hassan Advocate

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

C.M. No. ______/2002 In I.C.A. No.106/2001 In W.P. No. 3474/ 2001

Al-Takbeer KAPCO employees Union, GTPS, Kot Addu. VS Registrar of Trade Union, Dera Ghazi Khan Region, D. G. Khan & others.

Application for disposal/withdrawal of case on the basis of compromise.

Respectfully Sheweth: 1.

That afore-said Intra Court Appeal is pending adjudication before this Hon’ble Court.

2.

That the appellant who is a collective bargaining agent in the establishment and respondent No. 2 have amicably concluded settlement between them.

3.

That the parties have agreed to withdraw the aforesaid Intra Court Appeal on the basis of compromise, which is attached as Annex “A”. In view of the above, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to dispose of the above-titled Intra Court Appeal in the light of the compromise.

Humble Appellant,

Humble respondent No. 2,

(Mohtashim Aftab) Factory Manager, Kot Addu Power Company.

(Asif Chishti) General Secretary, Al-Takbeer Union (CBA)

Dated: ________ Through: Riaz-ul-Hassan Advocate

Through: Qamruz Zaman Butt, Advocate

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

C.M. No. ______/2002 In W.P. No. 1320/ 2001

Al-Takbeer KAPCO employees Union, GTPS, Kot Addu. VS Registrar of Trade Union, Dera Ghazi Khan Region, D. G. Khan & others.

Application for disposal/withdrawal of case on the basis of compromise.

Respectfully Sheweth: 1.

That afore-said Writ Petition is pending adjudication before this Hon’ble Court.

2.

That the appellant who is a collective bargaining agent in the establishment and Kot Addu Power Co. Intervener have amicably concluded settlement between them.

3.

That the parties have agreed to withdraw the aforesaid Intra Court Appeal on the basis of compromise, which is attached as Annex “A”.

In view of the above, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to dispose of the above-titled Intra Court Appeal in the light of the compromise.

Humble Intervenor,

Humble Petitioner,

(Mohtashim Aftab) Factory Manager, Kot Addu Power Company.

(Asif Chishti) General Secretary, Al-Takbeer Union (CBA)

Dated: ________ Through: Riaz-ul-Hassan Advocate

Through: Qamruz Zaman Butt, Advocate

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

C.M. No. ______/2002 In W.P. No. 1320/ 2001 Al-Takbeer KAPCO employees Union, GTPS, Kot Addu. VS Registrar of Trade Union, District Muzaffargarh & others. Dispensation Application. AFFIDAVIT of: Mohtashim Aftab, Factory Manager, Kot Addu Power Co. Ltd. Kot Addu, District Muzaffargarh. I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the above-mentioned application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been kept concealed thereto. DEPONENT Verification: Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day of August 2002 that the contents of this affidavit are true & correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

DEPONENT IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

C.M. No. ______/2002 In W.P. No. 1320/ 2001 Al-Takbeer KAPCO employees Union, GTPS, Kot Addu. VS Registrar of Trade Union, District Muzaffargarh & others. APPLICATION FOR DISPENSING WITH THE FILING OF CERTIFIED COPY OF THE DOCUMENT. =========================================== Respectfully Sheweth: 1. That the above-titled application is being filed before this Hon’ble Court, the contents of which should be considered as part & parcel of the main petition. 2. That certified copy of Annex “A” is not available on the file. However, uncertified/photo state copy of the same has been annexed with the petition, which is the true copy of the original document. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble court may please dispense with the filing of aforesaid copy of the document. APPLICANT, Dated: __________

Through: RIAZ-UL-HASSAN, Advocate 6-A, Ahsan Colony, Suraj Miani Road, Multan. Asif Chishti, General Secretary, Al-Takbeer KAPCO Employees Union, GTPS, Kot Addu Power Co. Ltd. Kot Addu, District Muzaffargarh.

I.C.A. No.105/2001 In W.P. No. 3474/ 2001 Kot Addu Power Co. Ltd. Kot Addu, District Muzaffargarh, through its Factory Manager, Mohtashim Aftab. VS Registrar of Trade Union, Dera Ghazi Khan Region, D. G. Khan & others.