1987 PLP 834 (PLC(CS))

DECISION This is a Revision Petition under section 38(3‑a) of I.R.O. 1969, filed by the applicants questioning the legality, correctness of the impugned order, dated 9‑12‑1986, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. l, Karachi, in the matter of Appeal No.5 of 1986, under section 8(7) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, whereby the appeal filed by Respondent No. l, namely, Muhammad Ali, regarding acceptance of change of office‑bearers by the Respondent of Trade Unions Karachi, Respondent No.2, herein.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant No. l, namely, Mst. Kaniz Fatima was elected as President of Atlas Group of Companies Employees Union, while applicant No.2, namely, Noor Muhammad s/o Khizer Khan, was elected as General Secretary in the general body meeting held in January, 1986. There were other office‑bearers elected which are shown to be respondents Nos.3, 4, 6 to 13 in the memo of appeal before the learned Labour Court. Such change of office‑bearers was accepted by the Registrar, Trade Unions, vide his letter, dated 30‑3‑1986. At that time, it appears from the record, that the respondent No.1, namely, Muhammad Ali had questioned change of office‑bearers in appeal No.l of 1985, which was sub judice in the 1st Sind Labour Court. Respondent No.l, it appears from the facts disclosed in Revision Petition had filed stay application praying for stopping the holding of general body meeting which application was not granted. General body accordingly held its meeting in which Constitution of the Union was amended and office‑bearers were elected. However, the learned Labour Court vide order, dated 30‑4‑1986, accepted appeal filed by Respondent No.l, and passed the following order:‑ "In short the only question before this Court is whether the present appellant was validly and legally replaced as General Secretary of the Union. Since it has been proved that the so called election alleged to have been held on 1‑1‑1985 was not valid and legal, therefore, it is concluded that the present appellant was not lawfully removed as the General Secretary of the Union and he shall continue to be the General Secretary of the Union till such time he is removed or replaced as per Constitution of the Union. Learned Counsel for the appellant also submitted that even thereafter elections were held and the change has been approved by the respondent No.l, vide letter No. RTU/WD/(869)/86‑286, dated 30‑3‑1986. Suffice it to observe that since the legality of this letter is a subject‑matter of a separate case which is said to be pending in Labour Court No.5, therefore, it would not be proper to comment on the legality of the superstructure has been raised on the premises which has been declared illegal by this Court. In these circumstances, I find no force in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that this appeal has become infructuous. The upshot of the above discussion is that this appeal is allowed only to the extent that the change of office‑bearers in question which is a subject‑matter of this appeal and has been accepted by the respondent No. l being illegal is hereby set aside."

3. Thereafter, again, respondent No. l, namely, Muhammad Ali, filed an appeal questioning the legality of change of office‑bearers as approved by the respondent No.2, the Registrar of Trade Unions, vide, his letter, dated 30‑3‑1986. The Labour Court after issuing Notice and hearing the parties passed the following orders:‑ "The upshot of the above discussion is that the impugned order is set aside. This appeal is allowed. The respondent No. l is directed to make necessary entries/changes in his record. The appellant shall continue to act as the General Secretary till such time he is removed lawfully or is replaced as per Constitution of the Union. Orders accordingly."

4. I have perused the record and have also heard Mr. M. L. Shahani, the learned Advocate for the applicants and Mr. Abdul Majeed, the learned representative of the Respondent No.l, while Mr. Qurban Ali Abbasi is present for Respondent No.2 i.e. Registrar of Trade Unions. ?

5. The main contention of Mr M T. Shahani is that the order of

12. Mr. A. Majeed, however, stated that since general body was summoned by the person who had no authority in Law, therefore, it could be termed as invalid. However, as stated earlier, on the day when general body was held, there was no legal restriction against the general body. Besides, the Registrar has stated that he perused the record of the union therefore accepting the change of office ?bearers. Even in the memo of appeal, there is no mention that the general body was illegally summoned. Thus, I find no substance, also in this submission of Mr. A. Majeed.

13. For the reasons stated by me above, I would set aside the impugned order, dated 9‑12‑1986, and dismiss the Appeal No.5 of 1986, filed by Muhammad Ali, respondent No. l, This Revision Petition is, therefore, decided accordingly. M.Y.H./930/Lb.S.??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition allowed.