2010K2213 (PLP)

SHAHID ANWAR BAJWA, J.

Factual background of this constitutional petition is that change of office-bearers of the Trade Union by the name "Karachi Sheraton Hotel International Employees Union" was communicated to the Registrar, Trade Unions and Registrar registered the change vide letter dated 7-6-2004. Thereafter on 3-3-2005 no-confidence motion was stated to have been passed against Islamuddin respondent No.3, President and one Wajid Rauf treasurer. Registrar was accordingly informed. It is alleged in the petition that no action was taken by the Registrar. It is further submitted that fresh elections were held and Registrar was informed vide letter dated 23-3-2005 in this regard. Registrar, Trade Unions vide letter dated 16-6-2005, since two parallel changes of the office-bearers had been requested, ordered that fresh orders for elections of office-bearers under the auspices of department of Labour be held. This order of Registrar was challenged in the Labour Court under section 9(9) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 and learned Labour Court vide order, dated 3-8-2005 set aside the order passed by the Registrar. The Labour Court directed Registrar either to accept or refuse change of office-bearers produced before him. In consequences thereof Registrar on 27-10-2005 rejected change submitted by the petitioner and accepted change submitted by the opposite side. Being aggrieved by this order an appeal was filed under section 9(9) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 and that appeal was dismissed by the Labour Court through its order, dated November 30, 2006. This writ petition has been filed to challenge the order passed by Labour Court.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner first relied upon Karachi Warehouse and Carriers Workers Union v. Pakistan Warehouse Carriers Workers' Union and 3 others PLD 1978 Kar. 417 where after referring to provisions of section 8 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 which provisions were pari materia and almost identical to the provisions of section 9 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, observed as under:

"(10) The perusal of the aforesaid provisions would show that if it is incumbent upon the Registrar to refuse to register any change of office-bearers if in his opinion it is in contravention of any of the provisions of the Ordinance or is in violation of the constitution of the Trade Union. In such case the Trade Union or any officer or member of such Trade Union has a right of appeal to the Labour Court. In absence of the refusal by the Registrar to register the change of office-bearers, it would obviously be presumed that no fault was found with the change of office-bearers."

3. Learned counsel also referred to Messrs Kohinoor Tea (Pvt.) Ltd. through Managing Director v. Registrar of Trade Unions, Karachi and 2 others 2000 PLC 1 where it was held that Registrar required to pass a speaking, order and an order passed by the Registrar in a slipshod manner would be liable to be set aside in constitutional jurisdiction.

4. There cannot be any cavil with the proposition laid down in the above two cited judgments. It goes without saying that under that law no specific approval for change of office-bearers is required to be given by the Registrar. All that is required is for Trade Union to communicate to the Registrar within 15 days of any change in office-bearers of the Trade Union. Registrar may refuse to register a change. However, there is no formal requirement of acceptance of registration. Therefore, if Registrar keeps quiet on communication sent by Trade Union and does not respond to it within reasonable period of time it is to be presumed that Registrar has not refused to register the change and consequently new office-bearers would be within their right to take their new offices.

5. However, in this particular case dispute is with respect to election held in 2005. Under the provision of industrial Relations Act, 2008, section 6(1)(j) period for which a office-bearer is elected is a maximum of two years. If period of two years has passed and an office-bearer continues to hold office without further election then he would be treated as usurper and his holding of such office would without lawful authority and of no legal effect. Reference in this regard can be made to MCB Staff Union of Pakistan v. Senior Member, NIRC, Lahore and 2 others 2001 PLC 131, in this case elections in respect of which present petition has been made were said to have been held some time in May, 2005. Therefore, period for which elections took place stood expired in May, 2007 and for those elected in 2007 the period expired in 2009.

6. Mr. Muhammad Humanyoon learned counsel for respondent No.2 has stated that elections have been twice held after 2005. This position is disputed by the Advocate for petitioner. This disputed question cannot be decided in constitutional jurisdiction. Therefore, if elections have not been held in 2007 or 2009, the petitioners are at liberty to approach the Registrar, Trade Unions for action in accordance with the law.

7. As far as this constitutional petition is concerned, dispute in respect of election held in 2005 has become purely academic. Therefore, this petition is dismissed. H.B.T./R-3/K Petition dismissed.