1992 PLC 234 (PLP)

Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 4th August, 1991. In Application No. KAR-15 of 1990, both the parties agreed on 13-12-1990 to hold general body meeting for fresh election on 25-1-1991. This Tribunal in the diary dated 13-12-1990 observed as under:-- "Looking to the relations between the parties, it is advisable that the election be held under the supervision of the Registrar of Trade Unions Sindh, who also may draw the election programme. The Registrar of Trade Unions Sindh, may be requested to draw the election programme and arrange to have the election held under his supervision on 25-1-1991."

2. The applicant Taleh Muhammad who was also applicant in Application No. KAR-15 of 1990 has moved this application under section 38(5) of I.R.O., 1969 read with section 5 of Contempt of Court Act, 1974 praying for action against Mr. Mirza Karim Baig the Registrar of Trade Union for disobeying the above order of this Tribunal. The application was sent to the contemner for his comments. He has stated in the comments that he had directed the concerned parties to furnish the list of members on prescribed pro forma on 9-1-1991. The applicants however submitted their membership register to the Registrar of Trade Union but the respondent did not submit the list of members and therefore it was difficult for the Registrar to hold election due to incomplete list of members. He has submitted that he believed in the supremacy of law and has highest regard for this Tribunal. He submitted that he did all the acts in good faith.

3. The Registrar has also averred in the comments that instead of allowing the Registrar to chalk out the election programme as per order of the Tribunal, the applicant himself chalked out the programme and appointed Election Commission for holding the election.

4. Mr. Salahuddin submits that the election was held on the due date by the parties, which hays not been accepted by the Registrar. He however states that they have not taken recourse by filing application of appeal under section 8(7) of I.R.O., 1969.

5. In fact such recourse was not necessary as according to Mr. Salahuddin the alleged refusal to effect the change of office-bearers has not been communicated in writing by the Registrar to the applicant. In fact subsection (4) of section 8 requires the Trade Union to intimate the Registrar about change of trade union within 15 days of the change. Under subsection (5) the Registrar may refuse the change for the reasons mentioned in sub-section (5). However, where no refusal to affect the change is communicated to the union, the presumption would be that change has been accepted. The law does not require any formal intimation about acceptance of the change of office-bearers, if the Registrar accepts it.

6. The date of election, was agreed to by the parties in this Tribunal as well as in the High Court in Constitutional Petition No. D-33 of 1990 which fact has been mentioned in the order of the Hon'ble High Court dated 9-1- I 191.

7. In view of the fact that election is said to have been held on the aforesaid date, the mere failure of the Registrar to supervise the election for reasons which he has mentioned in his comments, would indicate that he had not intentionally violated the order of the Tribunal. The element of mens rea is apparently absent in the action of the Registrar. As such under these circumstances no useful purpose would be served by initiating proceeding under the contempt of Court against Registrar of Trade Union. This application is therefore dismissed. H.B.T./1951/Lb.S Petition dismissed.