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: ___________

Through: -
CERTIFICATE: -
Riaz-u-Hassan,
Certified that as per instructions of our
client, W.P. No. 2998/2001 on the
Muhammad Amin Malik,
subject matter was filed earlier, which Advocates High Court
was disposed of vide order dated 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 above-
mentioned 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 E 58
(supervisors etc.)
10 Copy of order dated 11.4.2001. F 62
11 Copy of voter list prepared by G 64
respondent No. 1.
12 Copy of proceedings dated 27.4.2001. H 122
13 Copy of Minutes of common meeting J 132
dated 28.4.2001.
14 Copy of objection dated 27.4.2001. K 140
15 Copy of IMPUGNED ORDER L 144
dated 27.4.2001.
16 Copy of order dated 27.4.2001 of this M 172
Hon’ble Court.
17 Dispensation Application. 176
18 Affidavit. 178
19 Application U/s 151 C.P.C. 180
20 Affidavit. 182
21 Power of Attorney. 184

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 above-
mentioned 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, Humble Appellant,

(Asif Chishti) (Mohtashim Aftab)

General Secretary Factory Manager,
Al-Takbeer Union (CBA) Kot Addu Power
Company.

Dated: ________

Through: - Through: -
Qamruz Zaman Butt, Riaz-ul-Hassan
Advocate 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) (Asif Chishti)

Factory Manager, General Secretary,
Kot Addu Power Al-Takbeer Union
Company. (CBA)

Dated: ________

Through: - Through: -
Riaz-ul-Hassan Qamruz Zaman Butt,
Advocate 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) (Asif Chishti)

Factory Manager, General Secretary,
Kot Addu Power Al-Takbeer Union
Company. (CBA)

Dated: ________

Through: - Through: -
Riaz-ul-Hassan Qamruz Zaman Butt,
Advocate 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.