1978 PLP 191 (PLC)

Industrial Relation Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)

‑‑ S. 8(7)

Dispute relating to change of officers of Trade Union Appeal filed after eight months of Registrars order approving change of office‑bearers‑Delay not reasonably explained‑Appeal, held, cannot be entertained for being defective due to laches. Nazeer Ahmad Naz for Appellant. All Ahmad Mehmood; Superintendent for Respondent No.

1. Aqa Asif Jaffery for Respondent No.

2. An appeal has been filed by Haji Nasir‑ud‑Din and Malik Aftab Rabani Ex‑General Secretary and Ex‑President. Bahawalpur Textile Mills Mazdoor Union, Khanpur against the order dated 25th October, 1975 of the Registrar of Trade Union, Multan, hereinafter mentioned as the Registrar, whereby the first appellant was advised by the Registrar not to use the platform of the Mazdoor Union and seek declaration from the Labour Court under section 8 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 as the Registrar was not vested wish the powers of the review of his previous order. In the present appeal Rizwan Hussain. General Secretary and Sardar Ahmad President of the aforesaid Union were impleaded as respondents in addition to the Registrar. The main stay of the appeal is that the appel lants were elected as General Secretary and President of the Union as a result of the election held in 1973 and they could continue in their offices till such time new election was hold And that respondents Nos. 2 and 3 at the con travene of the Management got themselves elected on fraudulent basis and got approved the change of the office‑bearers by the Registrar. The foremost thing which has been noticed in appeal is that the order where under the change of the office‑bearers was approved by the Registrar has not been impugned. According to the record of the Registrar office the change of office‑bearers challenged by the appellants was approved on 20th April 1974. Later on the Union in which the appellants were the office‑bearers was directed to be cancelled Under section 10 (1) (1) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for none submission of the annual Return. The present appeal therefore can neither be sustained against the order of the Registrar dated 25th October, 1974 which was nothing to do with the change of office‑bearers and secondly the appellants can scarcely claim any Representative character of the Union which has already been directed to be cancelled doe order dated 6th December 1974. Besides the present appeal has been filed after eight months of the Registrar's order approving the change office of bearers with delay has not been reasonably `t explained and the appeal cannot be entertained as being defective of laches. The appeal is dismissed.