2014 PLP 297 (PLC)

SHEZADA MAZHAR, J.

Through the present petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 the petitioner has challenged the order dated 17-12-2011 whereby respondent No.1 approved amendment in the constitution of respondent No.2 trade union and also election proceedings held on 10-11-2011.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010 20% outsiders can be appointed as office bearer of a trade union. The amendment made in the constitution of respondent No.2 Employees Union Nestle Pakistan Limited (CBA) is against the statutory provisions which is absolutely unwarranted; that no amendment in the constitution of a trade union can be made against the statutory provisions. Submits that while introducing the amendment proper procedure was not adopted. Neither any notice was issued nor general body meting was convened to get approval of the amendment in the constitution; that order passed by respondent No.1 is also non-speaking and therefore, nullity in the eyes of law; that the amendment in the constitution made by respondent No.2 in connivance with the management of respondent No.3 in order to deprive the petitioner to participate in the coming elections of CBA; that the impugned order is in violation of Article 17 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent/CBA submits that the present writ petition is hit by laches as the petitioner has challenged the order dated 17-12-2011 through the present writ petition filed in October, 2013; that the petitioner has alternate adequate remedy in view of section 9(10) of the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010; that section 6 deals with the requirement at the time of registration which were fulfilled by respondent No.2's union at the relevant time; that the law does not debar amendment in the constitution; that bare reading of section 6(1)(d) of Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010 reveals that there is no bar on having more than 80% of the executive body from the workmen. Learned counsel further referred to section 3(ii) of the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010 whereby no worker is entitled to be a member of more than one trade unions at any one time, the petitioner has already registered his trade union, therefore, he cannot be made member of respondent No.2.

4. The learned Law Officer as well as learned counsel for respondent No.3 supported the contentions of learned counsel for respondent No.2. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 however added that under section 3(4) of the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010 the power to amend the constitution lies with the members of the association and therefore, the petitioner cannot raise any objection on the duly made amendment in the constitution of respondent No.2.

5. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.

6. Section 6(d) of the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010 states:

"the number of persons forming the executive which shall not exceed the prescribed limit and shall include not less than eighty percent from amongst the workmen actually engaged or employed in the establishment or group of establishments or the industry for which the trade union has been formed: " Bare reading of the above clause reveals that it has given only minimum number of workmen in the executive of a trade union. The said clause does not debar holding more than 80% posts of the executive by the workmen.

7. Further section 3(4) of the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010 which states "every trade union and employers association shall frame its own constitution and rules to elect its representatives in full freedom to organize its administration and activities and to formulate its programmes; clearly grants power to member of a trade union to frame its constitution without interference from any outsiders. The petitioner admittedly is not a member of respondent No.2's union and therefore, he is ineligible to challenge the amendment made by respondent No.2.

8. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 17-12-2011 without mentioning any reason for challenging the same after a period of about two years. Even no reason/ground is agitated before this court to maintain this petition after the period of about two years.

9. The present writ petition is hit by laches. Further the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the amendment in the constitution of respondent No.2 trade union.

10. In view of the above, the present writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. MWA/M-170/L Petition dismisse