Find a Lawyer

Petition No. 781 of 1974, decided on 7th January 1975.

----S. 8(7)--Removal of office bearers of Union----Vote of no-confidence forming basis of removal not taken in terms of constitution of Union-Office-bearers in circumstances held, could not be removed and continued to hold their positions.

Saeed Ahmad for Petitioners.

Nematullah, Assistant Director for Respondent No.1.

Respondent No. 2 in person.

Syed Altaf Hussain Shah and 11 others were the office-bearers of Workers Union, Adamjee Sugar Mjills, Darya Khan, District Mianwali. On 19-9-1947, they were removed from their offices. The change was approved by the Registrar, Trade Union, Sargodha Region, Lyallpur. Aggrieved by this change they filed an application under section 8(7) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance,. 1969, for a declaration that they, were still office-bearers of the said Union.

The application was resisted by the Registrar of Trade Unions and Noor Muhammad, the President of the Workers' Union. They pleaded that the petitioners were removed from their offices by a proper election and vote of no-confidence was passed against them. The only question which needs determination in this cube is whether the petitioners were properly removed from their offices.

I have examined the constitution of the Union. It says that the election would be held by secret ballots after every two years. It is an admitted fact that the election is due in January, 1975 and an office-bearer can be removed from his office by the Executive provided 2/3rd majority of the total number of the executive supports the removal. It is further provided in the constitution that a vote of no-confidence can be passed against any office bearer in a general meeting of the Union. The procedure for passing vote of no-confidence is that fide members of the Executive would give a notice to the President or General Secretary and then a notice of 7 days would be issued. Thereafter, the meeting of the general body would be called.

In the present case, it is alleged by the respondents that a vote of no-confidence was passed by the Workers' Union on 19-9-1974 and as such all the petitioners were removed from their offices. I have gone through the procedure adopted in this case. The procedure was wholly illegal. The irregularities committed by the respondents are explained herewith.

Syed Shahid Hussain and five others, who are office-bearers of the Union presented an application before the President, alleging that four office-bearers, namely Altaf Hussain, Allah Bunda, Muhammad Bux and Alam Khan were guilty of contravening rules of the Union, of making propaganda against Peoples Government and so action should be taken against them. Originally, the application contained only four names but it appears that three more names were added later on. At least it is clear that the applicants did not want to move their application against 12 office-bearers. It is alleged that a notice was pas-ed at the notice board. It says that there would be a meeting of the general body of the Union on 19-9-1974 at 8-30 a.m. In this notice originally 6 office-bearers were mentioned. The record of the proceedings shows that a meeting were held on 19-9-1974. It is stated in this proceeding that Sufi Noor Muhammad, President of the Union made a speech and pointed out that certain office-bearers were undersirable and so they should be removed from their offices. It is mentioned that all the labourers gave permission to the President to remove the said members.

I will not go into the detail if any application was actually presented or whether any notice was issued or not. The constitution lays down that the election would be held by secret ballots. It follows, therefore, that the vote of no-confidence could also be passed by a secret ballot. It was pointed out that the constitution has been amended. It is admitted that the amendment about secret ballot was made by the new office-bearers. On 19-9-1974, the old constitution was applicable and its para. 5 shows that the election should be held by a secret ballot, As the vote of no-confidence was not obtained by a secret ballot, therefore, the proceeding was illegal. Moreover, it is not given in the proceedings that the President either in his speech or in his resolution gave out the names of the persons who were to be removed from the offices. If he wanted that a vote of no-confidence should be passed, it was his duty to inform all the workers that he wanted to oust the petitioners and he must have mentioned the names of the petitioners before the workers. In the proceedings recorded by him it is stated that the labourers gave him the authority to remove the office-bearers. This procedure could not be adopted. It is not provided in the constitution that the workers would give any authority to the President to remove the office bearers in his own discretion or individual judgment. The proper procedure was that the name of one office-bearer should have been placed before the general body and they would have been asked if they wanted to remove him from his office. In the same manner, the name of each office-bearer must have been taken separately and distinctly and thereafter the workers should have been asked the same question. The procedure as mentioned, in the proceedings was completely illegal.

For the above reason I hold that vote of no-confidence alleged to have been passed on 19-9-1974 is illegal, ultra vires and inoperative on the rights of the petitioners. It is further held that they are still office-bearers of Union.

At present the position of the Union is that the office-bearers stand divided. There are factions, one consisting of 12 members and the other consisting of 11 members. The election of the Union is to be held in January, 1975. In the interest of industrial peace. I direct the Registrar, to hold fresh election of the Union under his supervision in the second fortnight of this month.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.