Find a Lawyer

Petition No. 29 of 1975, decided on 17th January 1975.

---Elections of Trade Union-Internal affair of Union-Court cannot interfere-Nomination papers rejected by scrutiny committee appointed by executive body of Union-Application under S.8(7) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 against decision of scrutiny committee, held, not maintainable-Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 8(7).

Syed Zafar Rizvi for Appellant.

Rana Irshad Ahmad for Respondent.

The respondents loos. I to 3 are the office-bearers of Employees' Union, Makarwal & Gullakhel Collaerics, District Mianwali. On 28th December 1974, the Union convened a meeting and by a resolution appointed a committee consisting of respondents Nos. 4 to 6 for scrutiny of nomination papers for the election to be held on 19th January 1975. The said committee invited nomination papers on 7th January 1975. They scrutinized them on 9th January 1975. They rejected the nomination papers of Ajab Gul who wanted to contest for the office of President. They also rejected the nomination papers of Abdul Qayum, who wanted to contest the office of General Secretary. Aggrieved by this decision of the said committee the petitioners have filed this application under section 8(7) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Their prayer is that the rejection of their nomination papers be declared null and void and the respondents be restrained from holding any election on 19th January 1975.

I am of the view that this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere into the election being held by the employees' Union. Section 8 of the Ordinance deals with the registration of a Trade Union. This section has empowered the Registrar to resister a Trade Union and isle a registration certificate. The Union ha3 to notify the names of is fiwe-bearer3 to the Registrar. Every change of officers of the Trade Union shall have to be notified to the Registrar within 15 days of such change and in case the Registrar refuses to register such change the Trade Union is competent to file an appeal before the Labour Court. The function and the powers of the Labour Courts are given in subsection 7 which reads as under: ---

"In case there is a dispute in relation to the change of officers of ,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 appeal to the Labour Court, who shall within seven days of the receipt of the application or appeal, as the case may be, pass an order either directing the Registrar to register the change or alteration in the con stitution or in the officers of the Trade Union or may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, direct the Registrar to hold fresh elections of the Union under his supervision."

In the present case no dispute in relation to the change of officers of a Trade Union arises. The petitioners are not the office-bearers. They are members of employees Union. Holding an election is a private affair of the Union, of course, the Union is governed by the rules of their own constitution. The manner of election is given in rule No. 9 of the Constitution. According to this rule, President and General Secretary shall be elected by secret ballots for a period of two years while the other office-bearers shall be elected in the annual general meeting of the Union by the majority of votes, for a period of two years. There is no provision in the Constitution that any committee' shall be appointed for scrutiny of nomination papers. It was for the Executive of the Union to provide any mode for the nomination papers. They are at liberty to put any conditions on the candidates. In the present case a resolution was passed on 28th December 1974 by the employees Union; appointing a committee consisting of respondents Nos. 4 to 6, for scrutiny; of nomination papers. Ordinarily the finding of the committee is binding on the members of the Union. Even if it is held that the decision of the said committee was wrong, the Labour Court has not been authorised under section 8(7) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, to interfere into the domestic affairs of any Trade Union. The jurisdiction of the Labour Court starts only when there is a change in relation to the office-bearers of the Union. At present the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 are the office-bearers and there is no dispute about the change of their office or the change of any other office-bearer of the same Union. I, therefore hold that the matter is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court. For the above reasons the petition is dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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