1990 PLP 245 (PLC)

M.S.H. QURAISHI (CHAIRMAN).‑‑As a common question of law is involved in these three appeals bearing Nos. 12(22)/88, 12(23)/88 and 12(24)/88 which arise out of petitions Nos. 7(3)/88, 7(136)/87 and 13(164)/87, respectively, filed under section 8(4) of the I.R.O., 1969, they are being disposed of together by this order.

2. The facts relevant to Appeals Nos. 12(22)/88 and 12(23)/88 are that the Pakistan Telecommunication Line Staff Union, which is registered with this Commission, is organised, according to its constitution at the Central, regional divisional and sub‑divisional levels. Elections in the union F2rq held in pursuance of directive of the Central Executive of the Union. Accordingly, a circular letter dated 22‑9‑1987 had been issued to the effect that the elections would be held on 4‑10‑1987 for which nominations were to be submitted by 30‑9‑1987. The election was, however, held not on 4‑10‑1987 but on 14‑10‑1987 in violation of the said directive of the central executive. Jalalabad appellant in Appeal No. 12(22) of 1988 was a candidate for the post of Divisional President of Telegraph Division, Peshawar. Sabir Hussain, appellant in Appeal No. 12(23) of 1988 was a candidate for the post of Divisional Secretary in the said division. Both the appellants considered the elections held on 14‑10‑1987 to be illegal and accordingly, boycotted the same with the result that their rival candidates got elected. They prayed in their respective petitions that the election held in Peshawar Telegraph Division be declared to be null and void and that their respective rivals who had been elected in the said election be restrained from holding their posts.

3. In the third Appeal No. 12(24) of 1987 which concerns the Pakistan Telecommunication (Traffic) Union, which is also organised at central, regional, divisional and sub‑divisional levels, the central executive appointed one Danish Raza as the Election Commissioner for holding elections of the union at regional and divisional levels. Gul Hassan appellant in his petition had alleged that the said Danish Ram was not enrolling the members of his group nor did he allow them to file nomination papers. He, therefore, prayed for issue of a direction to Danish Raza‑‑ (i) to hold elections in fair and impartial manner, (ii) to allow the petitioner Gul Hassan and his group to contest the elections, and (iii) to allow members of the union to cast their votes.

4. The maintainability of the appellants' petitions was challenged by the other side before the Single Bench exercising powers of Registrar, Trade Unions on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. It was pointed out that since the Registrar, Trade Unions could interfere only in a dispute in relation to change of office -bearers of a trade union and since the office‑bearers of the regional or divisional bodies of the union were not office‑bearers of the union the Registrar had no jurisdiction in the matter. The case of the appellants, however, was that the holding of the election was in violation of the union's constitution, and that‑‑ "At the time when change of the Central Executive would be submitted to the Registrar of Trade Unions for approval and there is a dispute relating to casting of vote by an illegally elected or nominated Divisional President or Divisional Secretary, the Registrar would be legally bound to adjudicate upon the vires of Divisional elections. The Registrar, Trade Unions has, therefore, been legally empowered to interfere in the Divisional Body Elections under section 8(4) read with section 8(5) of the I.R.O., 1969 which lays down that Registrar may refuse the change if it is in violation of the constitution of the Union."

5. The respondents' contention, however, prevailed. The learned Senior Member held that the word `officers' relating to a union has been defined to mean a member of the executive thereof excepting auditor or legal adviser, that the regional or divisional bodies of the union not being the union itself, its officers could not be treated to be officers of the union and as such the Registrar could not interfere in election to such bodies, that the Registrar could acquire a limited jurisdiction to register or to refuse to register the change in the office‑hearers under section 8(5) if the same be notified under section 8(4) of the I.R.O. and that he had no power to stop irregularities, order fair elections and allow the candidates to contest elections or to cast votes. He further expressed that in case of violation of the constitution, proceedings could be instituted for cancellation of the registration of the union. He, therefore, by his impugned order dated 9‑6‑1988 held that he had no jurisdiction and accordingly directed the return of the petitions to the respective petitioners.

6. Under section 6(a)(iii) of the I.R.O., 1969, it is one of the requirements for registration of a trade union that it shall furnish a statement showing the titles, names, ages, addresses and occupations of the "officers of the trade union:" This requirement is, accordingly, incorporated in form `A' under regulation 8(1) of tire N.I.R.C. (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973. Once a trade union has been registered, every subsequent change of its "officers" is to be notified, under subsection (4) of section 8 of the I.R.O., to the Registrar "within fifteen days of such change and the Registrar may, under subsection (5) of that section, refuse to register such change if‑it is in contravention of any of the provisions of the I.R.O. or if it is in violation of the constitution of the trade union. In case there is a dispute in relation to the change of officers of a trade union, the same may be' taken to the Labour Court by any officer or member of the trade union and in, case of refusal of the Registrar to register the change, an appeal can lie.

7. These provisions of section 8 thus relate to a change of the officers of a trade union. An officer of a trade union according to section 2(xviii), means "any member of the executive thereof but does not include an auditor or legal adviser". The term executive has been defined under clause (x) of section 2 to mean "the body, by whatever name called, to which the management of the affairs of a trade union is entrusted by its constitution". The jurisdiction of the Registrar can thus be invoked only in respect of a change of an "officer" of the trade union and that, too, after such change has been notified by the trade union in the manner prescribed i.e. by registered post.

8. It is not the case of the petitioners that a change of the officers of the trade union had been duly notified by registered post to the Registrar. Moreover, in Petitions Nos. 7(3) of 1988 and 7(136) of 1987 the change is not even in respect of an officer of the trade union concerned, within the meaning of the I.R.O. because the change brought about is in respect of the President and General Secretary respectively of the Divisional Body who are not "officers" of the Union. In the third Petition No. 13(164) of 1987, it is submitted, on the basis of Article 16 of the Union's constitution that the President and the Secretary of the Regional Union being ex‑officio Members of the Markazi Majlis‑e‑Muntazima which is the Executive of the Union, a change in them would attract the provision of the law. However, the election of the said officers of the regional body is yet to be held; a change in the officers, if any, is yet to take place and such change is yet to be notified to the Commission.

9. On behalf of the appellants reliance was placed on a judgment of Full Bench of the Commission in S.M. Hussain, President (Central), PTU, Lahore and others v. Muhammad Ashraf Khan, Telephone Operator (Trunk) Sukkur (Appeal No.12(48) of 1986) but in that appeal no such controversy as is before us had been raised nor was any view expressed therein to help resolve the controversy. On the other hand such a contention had been raised before a Division Bench of the Sindh High Court in Muhammad Soomar, etc. v. N.I.R.C. etc. 1987 P L C 782 where a Single Bench of this Commission had set aside the nomination of the office‑bearers at the regional and divisional level and the N.I.R.C.'s jurisdiction for doing so had been challenged. The High Court did not repel the contention but declined to interfere with the following observation: "Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case even if the N.I.R.C. did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the dispute justice has been dune."

10. For these reasons, it was premature to invoke the jurisdiction of the Registrar. The relief sought could, therefore, not be granted. The petitions moved by the appellants could not be maintained upon allegations simpliciter of a breach of the constitution. The remedy the that can be found elsewhere in the I.R.O.

11. In the result, no interference is called for with the impugned order. The appeals fail and are, accordingly, dismissed. M.Y.H./146/N.I.R.C. Appeal dismissed.