2000 PLP 621 (PLC)

(2) that Mubarak Ali Shah was not a Member of Union and as such without being a Member of the Union he had no locus standi to approach the Labour Court, under section 8(7) of the I. R. O., 1969.

5. Dealing first with the second plea about the locus standi of Mubarak Ali Shah, learned counsel invited my attention to sub‑clause (c) of clause 9 of the constitution of the Union, appearing at page 83 of this Revision Application which reads as under:‑‑ "A member failing to pay monthly subscription or any other dues for three consecutive months without the permission .of the Managing Committee shall cease to be member of the union but he shall be entitled to rejoin the union on payment of all the arrears". As stated at the Bar by Mr. Ch. Muhammad Ashraf that notwithstanding with the removal of Mubarak Ali Shah as Senior Vice‑President on 28‑7‑1997 he continued to be Member. Failure to pay subscription for 3 months implies wilful default.

6. Mr. Mubarak Ali Shah, the appellant before the learned Labour Court, was admittedly elected as Senior Vice‑President of the Union for the year 1995 to November, 1997. According to the constitution of the Union elections are held for two years. Further elections were to be held in the month of November, 1997 for the period of two years i.e. 1997 to November, 1999. The submission of the .learned counsel for the applicant that the union subscription was not deducted from Mr. Mubarak Ali Shah since October, 1997, as such he, not being a Member, had no locus standi to file appeal before the Labour Court, appears to be misconceived. The learned Labour Court while observing that the learned counsel for Mubarak Ali Shah submitted pay slip for the month of September, 1997 in which the union fee of Rs.25 was deducted from the pay of the appellant (Mubarak Ali Shah) by check off system.

7. A perusal of the order impugned in this application shows that the then General Secretary and its President namely Shabbir Khan and Ch. M. Sharif respectively have arbitrarily without any reason requested the General Manager (Administration) Duty Free Shop not to deduct the union subscriptions of Mubarak Ali Shah as such the management did stop the union subscription fund from the monthly salary of the appellant. Annexure R. W./A referred to by the learned Labour Court in his judgment which is in compliance of the letter, dated 24‑9‑1997 written by the above-said General Secretary and President is self‑explanatory.

8. Under the circumstances it cannot be said that Mubarak Ali Shah stopped paying his subscription and as such ceased to be Member of the Union; with the result that he had no locus standi to file the appeal. The learned Labour Court was, thus, justified in holding that the direction of the General Secretary and the President for not deducting union fund from the salary of Mubarak Ali Shah was illegal and unwarranted.

9. The learned Labour Court has clearly held that it is clear from the documentary proof that Mubarak Ali Shah was a Member of the Union and that Shabbir Khan and Ch. M. Sharif without assigning reason arbitrarily requested the management not to deduct union fee and, thus, he gave a clear finding that "appellant (Mubarak Shah) is Member of the Union and has locus standi to file the appeal".

10. As regards the non‑production of the order impugning in the appeal filed by Mubarak Ali Shah also carries no weight as the relevant record of the union concerned/Registrar was before the learned Labour Court and while deciding the appeal he had applied his. mind fully well to the relevant facts attitude and I don t find any illegality in the order impugned in this Revision Application.

11. Mr. M.A.K. Azmati, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the vacancies were filled by the respondent through co‑option and their was no election. Respondents Nos.4 and 6 have filed their affidavits corroborating the affidavit of Mubarak Ali Shah. According to the constitution of the Union President, Senior Vice‑President or Vice‑President have to preside over the meeting but none of them appears to have presided over the meeting where the co‑option was made. As such any co‑option or any proceeding for the same were illegal and not binding upon Mubarak Ali Shah and the other respondents.

12. Although, according to the applicants herein, their elections were alleged to be held by show of hands, but, Qasim and Shabbir Khan, Respondents Nos.4 and 5 in the appeal through their affidavits, denied the allegations of other respondents accepting the version of Mubarak Ali Shah and others. No other respondent in the appeal did file any counter‑affidavit rebutting the allegation of Mubarak Ali Shah and the other two respondents in the appeal. The learned Labour Court further observed that the respondent in appeal (the applicant herein) did not file any document relating to election held on 28‑12‑1997 as alleged. The learned Labour Court, therefore, came to the conclusion that the change of office‑bearers submitted by the said respondent (the applicant herein) before the Registrar of Trade Unions Was illegal. The learned Labour Court took pains in going through the R & P, perhaps, submitted by the Registrar of Trade Unions and came to the conclusion that the change of office‑bearers was illegal and unwarranted by the constitution of the Union and consequently the proceedings of co‑option as well as further change of office‑bearers after co‑option were held to be illegal.

13. These findings are all based on facts on record. This Tribunal while hearing the matter in Revision felt satisfied with the finding recorded by the Labour Court and conclusion drawn there from.

14. The order passed by the learned Labour Court to hold fresh elections of the Union under the supervision of the Registrar of Trade Unions within one month from the date of the order impugned in this Revision is upheld. Since the period fixed in the order by the learned Labour Court has already expired and probably there has been no fresh elections so far as the impugned order was suspended by my learned predecessor by his order, dated 8‑10‑1998, I, therefore, uphold the order of Labour Court directing the Registrar of Trade Unions to hold elections, now latest by 30‑9‑1999 after completing necessary formalities for the same.

15. In view of the above the Revision Application has no force and is dismissed accordingly.

16. These are the reasons for my short order dismissing the Revision Application. 17 Announced today the 23rd of August, 1999 in open Court. H.B.T./327/K (Lab. Trib.) Revision dismissed.