Find a Lawyer

Petitions Nos. RYK‑368 and 383 of 1983, decided on 20th March, 1984.

‑‑ S. 8 (7)‑Election of office‑bearer of Union‑Two rival groups holding elections separately on different dates‑Seven days notice for convening meeting for holding election as per requirement of constitu tion of union not given by either group‑Such elections illegal Registrar disapproving both elections‑Labour Court dismissing appeals against orders of Registrar upholding same‑Labour Court, in circumstances, held, should have directed Registrar to hold election under his supervision hence order of Labour Court modified accord ingly by Appellate Tribunal in revision‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) S. 38 (3‑a).

Aqa Asif Jaffary and Muhammad Zaman Qureshi for Petitioners.

Yousaf Hussain Dilawari for Respondent.

Date of hearing : l1tb March, 1984.

The two revisions captioned above arise from two different orders, dated 25th October, 1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 8, Bahawalpur dismissing the appeals of the petitioners. Muhammad Qadir etc. will be described in this judgment as respondent No. 1 and Zarbat Shah etc. as respondent No. 2.

2. There are two groups in Anjuman Falah‑e‑Mazdooran Abbasi Textile Mills Limited, Rahimyar Khan. One is headed by Jam Allah Bux and the other by Maqbool Ahmad. In December, 1981 elections of office holders were held and Maqbool Ahmad's party was elected as office‑bearers for the year 1982. In the same meeting the constitution of the union was amended and for the future period of office‑holder was raised to two years. In December, 1982 between 20th and 31st elections were due but were not held. Papers of no‑confidence were presented to the Registrar but he held that no question of passing vote of no‑confidence could arise, inasmuch as the term of the office‑holders had expired. Maqbool group extended the date of the annual meeting of the general body and held elections of the office‑holders on 3rd and 4th May, 1983. Papers were sent to the Re gistrar for approval. On the other side Jam Allah Baksh group without the intervention of the previous office‑holders of the union held separate elec tions of the office‑holders and sent papers to the Registrar for approval. The Registrar disapproved both the elections which led both the groups to challenge the order of the Registrar in separate appeals. The learned lower Court has dismissed both the appeals upholding the orders of the Registrar and hence these revisions.

3. The election of Maqbool Ahmad's group was not approved for the reason that the group had increased its members by 847 after their term of office had come to an end. The office‑holders should have held annual meeting of the General Body to hold elections before 31st December, 1982. The learned counsel for Muhammad Qadir etc. has argued that it was the right of the workers to join membership of the union and since they had become the members they had a right to cast vote.

4. As union is one, every worker who became the members became the member of the union and not of any group. Group system within the same union is not recognised. Groups may exist in a union but they have no legal recognition. So if a worker becomes the member before the election is held, he nevertheless is the member and has a right to vote. Both the groups have failed to establish that they had given seven days notice for convening annual meeting for holding elections. No such notice was caused to be produced. This is a mandatory provision of the constitution of the' Union. Any election held without complying with this formality cannot be a legal election.

5. The term of the office‑holders had come to an end on 31st Decem ber, 1982. There is no provision in the constitution for the extension of the term of office. The provision is of postponement of the annual meeting and that too in continuation of the term and not beyond that. This does not mean extension of term of office.

6. The Registrar rightly disapproved the elections held by the two' groups and the learned lower Court, however, should have directed the Registrar to hold elections under his supervision as required by section 8(7)1 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.

7. So the revisions are disposed of modifying the order of the learned lower Court by directing the Registrar to hold elections of the office‑holder of the union under his supervision as soon as possible.

A. E. Order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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