1994 PLP 128 (PLC)

Abdul Hakim Awan for Petitioners. Muhammad Zaman Qureshi for Respondents Nos. l and

2. Nazir Ahmad, Assistant for Respondent No.

3. Date of hearing: 30th November, 1993. This revision petition is directed against the order of the Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala dated 7th of June, 1993, whereby the appeal filed by the Municipal United Workers and Staff Welfare Union, Municipal Corporation, Gujranwala through respondents Nos. 1 and 2 was accepted and setting aside the order passed by the Registrar of Trade Unions, Gujranwala Region, Gujranwala, respondent No. 3, on 5th of October, 1992, he was directed to personally hold an inquiry and pass a fresh order in the light thereof.

2. The petitioners and respondents Nos. 1 and 2 belong to rival groups of the Municipal United Workers and Staff Welfare Union, Municipal Corporation, Gujranwala. Both of them claim to have been elected as office bearers of the trade union in the proceedings held by them separately. They intimated the change in their favour to the Registrar. Since there existed a dispute in relation to the change of officers of the trade union, the Registrar nominated a Deputy Director (Labour) to hold an inquiry in the dispute. On the basis of the report submitted by the Inquiry Officer on 4th of October, 1992, the Registrar vide his order dated 5th of October, 1992 approved the change in favour of the petitioners only.

3. Feeling aggrieved, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed an appeal under section 8(7) of the industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 before the Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala not in their own names but on behalf of the trade union through them. It was alleged that the inquiry bead by the Deputy Director (Labour) was fake and that they were not given any notice thereof.

4. The petitioners contested the appeal controverting the allegation of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and raising a legal objection that the appeal deserved dismissal on the ground that the same had been filed by the trade union and not by any officer or member thereof.

5. The learned Labour Court vide its impugned order accepted the plea of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and setting aside the order of the Registrar dated 5th of October, 1992, directed him to hold an inquiry himself and pass a fresh order. It, however, did not deal with the legal objection raised by the petitioners with regard to the competency of the appeal. Hence this revision petition.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. As regards the merits of the case, learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out any serious infirmity in the impugned order. The inquiry as a result of which the Registrar passed his order dated 5th of October, 1992, was held ex parte. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 asserted that no prior notice of the inquiry was served on them. This assertion was borne cut from the record and, therefore, (he learned Labour Court was justified in reversing the order of the Registrar and directing him to hold a fresh inquiry personally.

7. However, the legal objection to the competency of the appeal is not without substance. Section 8, subsection (7) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 envisages that in case there is a dispute in relation to the change of officers of a trade union or any trade union is aggrieved by the refusal of the Registrar under subsection (5), any officer or member of the trade union may apply or appeal to the Labour Court. It does not provide that the trade union itself may apply or appeal in this behalf; This question was discussed in detail in Muhammad Shari v. Employees Union, Hyesons Sugar Mills, Khanpur and another (PLJ 1979 Tr.C. (Labour) 245), decided by this Tribunal and it was held that the existence of a trade union was distinct and separate from its officers and under section 8(7) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 it was only an officer or a member of a trade union who had been given a right to file an appeal against the rejection of the change by the Registrar. The Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal also concurred in this view in K.M.C. Sanitary anti General Employees Union v. Khalid Hafeez and others 1991 PLC

593. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 and 2 has argued that the appeal by the trade union was competent. He has cited Syed Muzaffar Hussain Shah v. Registrar, Trade Unions, Rawalpindi and others 1980 PLC 219 and Shamsur Rehman and another v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and others (PLJ 1982 Karachi 414). This controversy, however, has not been dealt with in these authorities and, therefore, they are of no avail to resolve the same.

8. I, therefore, uphold the legal objection of the petitioners and holding that the appeal preferred in the Labour Court from the order of the Registrar dated 5th of October, 1992 was not filed competently, accept the revision petition and dismiss the appeal. H.B.T./762/Lb.P Order accordingly.