' HAMID ALI MIRZA, J.---This civil petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 7-12-2000 in Appeal No,434(K)/(CE)/2000 (Pakistan Steel Mills Ltd., Karachi v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and 10 others) whereby appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed as time-barred.
' The facts of the case need not be reproduced as the only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that learned Federal Service Tribunal has erred in dismissing their petition as barred by time considering that delay, if any, could have been condoned under the law.
Learned counsel has placed reliance upon (i) Muhammad Afzal v. Karachi Electric Supply Corporation and 2 others (1999 SCM R 92). (ii) Syed Aftab Ahmed and others v. K.E.S.C. And others (1999 SCM R 197), (iii) Qaisar Amin and others v. President of U.B.L. And others(2000 SCM R 174), (vi)
Muhammad Yaqub v. Pakistan Petroleum Ltd. And others (2000 SCM R 830), (v) Malik Mumtaz Ahmed and others v. Federal Service Tribunal and others (2000 SCM R 832) and (vi) Imtiaz Butt and others v. Chairman, Pakistan International Airlines Corporation, Karachi (2000 SCM R 944) in support of his contention.
' We do not find substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
' The learned Tribunal in para.3 of the impugned order has observed:--- "3. Admittedly the order which has been assailed before this Tribunal is, dated 25-2-1991 against which the appellant approached the Hon'ble High Court of Sindh by filing C.P. No,D-648 of 1991 which abated on 11-4-2000. In all fairness the insertion was made effective from 10-6-1997, the date on which such type of matters automatically.Stood abated. In any case, if order of abatement was passed earlier or was passed later on, then too, the appellants should have filed appeals without 90 days, which was to be reckoned from 10-6-1997. In case the order was passed on 11-4-2000, as in the instant appeal then too, the appellant should have filed appeal within 30 days but this was not done and the appeal was filed on 12-6-2000. No doubt, the appellant would take benefit of receiving the copy of which, according to the stamp, was applied on 2-6-2000 and the same was supplied on 7-6-2000, but it is worthy to note that the order was passed in open Court on 11-4-2000 when the counsel for the appellant was in attendance. The appellant's counsel for the appellant should have been vigilant in filing the appeal well in time and in case the counsel for the appellant has taken the support of the authorities cited above, we are of the view that the said authorities are of no help to him because he was not pursuing the Matter before wrong forum but had bona fidely filed C.P. Before the Hon'ble High Court of Sindh as at that time it was the only remedy available to the appellant. No doubt, there was confusion for some short time but the position had become clear after the decision of august Supreme Court in reported authority appearing in 1999 SCM R 197."
' Section 6 of the Service Tribunals Act reads as follows:-- "6. Abatement of suits and other proceedings.---All suits, appeals or applications regarding any matter within the jurisdiction of a Tribunal pending in any Court immediately before the commencement of this Act shall abate forthwith: ' Provided that any party to such a suit, appeal or application may, within ninety days of the establishment of the appropriate Tribunal, prefer an appeal to it in respect of any such matter which is in issue in such suit, appeal or application."
There is no cavil with the law laid down by this Court in (i) Muhammad Afzal's case and (ii) Malik Mumtaz Ahmed's case (sUpra) that insertion of section 2-A in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 was procedural in the nature therefore, it was retrospective in operation, so also Service Tribunal would be competent to consider application for condonation of delay on showing sufficient cause in just and proper cases as held by this Court in (i) Aftab Ahmed. (ii) Qaiser Amin and (iii) Muhammad Yaqub cases (supra). In the instant case the learned Service Tribunal has examined the grounds of delay in filing the appeal but the grounds were neither sufficient nor just for the condonation of delay, therefore, no exception could be taken to the finding arrived at by the learned Tribunal.
Admittedly section 2-A of Service Tribunals Act was inserted and was made effective from 10-6- 1997 and in view of section 6 of Service Tribunals Act in case of abatement of proceedings before any Court the appeal before the concerned Service Tribunal was to be preferred within 90 days but in the instant case Constitution Petition was filed in 1991 which remained pending and it stood automatically abated on the insertion of section 2-A of the said Act i.e, 10-6-1997 but the formal order of abatement was passed on 11-4-2000 which would not extend the period of limitation prescribed under law. In the circumstance this petition has no merit hence leave to appeal is refused and petition is dismissed.
2004 SCM R 103 [Supreme Court of Pakistan] Preset- Irshad Hasan Khan, C J., Ch. Muhammad At if and Munn- A. Sheikh, JJ KARACHI HARBOUR SHIP'S CLEANING WORKERS' UNION-Petitioner versus REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS, GOV LIN RMENT OF SINDH---Respondent Civil Petition No 498-K of 2001, decided on 31st Jul, 2001 (On appeal from judgment, dated 18-7-2001 passed by the High Court of Sindh, Karachi in Constitution Petition No,236 of 2001).
Industrial RelationsOrdinance (XXIII of 1969)--- ----S.8---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Election change of trade union--- Application for election change was moved 11 years after elections and the application established that the election change had been brought about by show of hands in general body meeting without following constitution of the trade union---Registrar, Trade Unions, declined to register the election change and the order was maintained by High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction--Validity---High Court was right in observing that the request for election change could be refused by Registrar of Trade Unions itself---Supreme Court declined to interfere with the order passed by the High Court---Leave to appeal was refused. [p. 1061 A Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 31st July, 2001.
' CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, J.---This petition is directed against judgment, dated 18-7-2001 passed by a learned Singe Judge of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi in Constitution Petition No,236 of 2001.
2. Brief facts leading to the institution of this petition are that petitioner-Karachi Harbour Ship's Cleaning Workers' Union held its election on 24-8-1999 under which Shah Saeed Group was re- elected and 'election change' of office-bearers thereof under section 8(4) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, hereinafter referred to as 1969- Ordiannce, was sent to respondent No,2 for registration. On 10-8-1999, respondent No,2 received another 'election change' i.e, of office- bearers of 'Ilam Dost Group' within the fold of petitioner-Union. On receipt of the above two parallel 'election changes', an inquiry was held by respondent No,2 wherein 'Shah Saeed Group' was recommended and its approval was sought from respondent No,1. However, this arrangement was reversed by respondent No,1 through the impugned letter No,DLS/RTU/SD/3357/2000/1115, dated 1- 7-2000.
3. Being aggrieved by the refusal to effect 'election change' of office-bearer thereof by the respondents, the petitioner-Union filedAppeal No,3 of 2001 before the Sindh Labour Court No,V, Karachi (respondent No,3) under section 8(7) of 1969-Ordinance. After hearing the parties and perusing the written statement/comments on behalf of respondents Nos.1 and 2 i.e, (i) Registar of Trade Unions, Government of Sindh, and (ii) Registrar of Trade Unions, South Division Office, Government of Sindh, the appeal was dismissed with the observation that respondents Nos.1 and 2 herein had rightly rejected the change of petitioner-Union vide judgment, dated 24-5-2001. To cut a long story short the petitioner remained unsuccessful before the learned Judge in Chambers of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi as well through the impugned judgment, dated 18-7-2000 as below: "As it has come on record that the said union has remained in office for the last twelve years, but no elections were held, however, an application for change of officer-bearers was moved in 1999 after the first election held in 1988. The contents of the application clearly establish that the change has been brought by show of hand in General Body Meeting without following the constitution of the union."
"Section 8, subsections (4) 'and (5) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 which is reproduced hereunder:- "(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Ordinance every alteration made in the constitution of a registered trade union and every change of its officers shall be notified by a registered post letter by the trade union to the Registrar within 15 days of such change.
(5) The Registrar may refuse to register such change or alteration if it is in contravention of any of the provisions of this Ordinance or if it is in violation of the constitution of the trade union."
' A reading of the above subsections would show that any change in the office-bearers may be refused by respondent No,1 R.T.U. On the ground that the same is in contravention of provisions of I.R.O. Or in violation of the constitution of the trade union.
' The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any error in the above finding as well as finding on other point.
' The case-law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable.
' The conduct of the petitioner's union is such they have remained in the office beyond the fixed period of two years and no election was held despite of lapse of said period. The last election of the union washeld on 23-6-1988. The petitioner's union has also failed to submit annual return since 1990, although notices were issued in this respect to the petitioner's union. According to the petitioner's union the returns were submitted before the passing of the order by the learned Labour Appellate Court. The above conduct of the petitioner's union establishes that the petitioner union is not entitled to any discretionary relief of this Court. The Courts will refuse to perpetuate something, which would be patently unjust and unlawful. This Court has always refused to issue writ in aid of injustice. (Underlining is for emphasis. Here in italic).
4. We have heard Mr. Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, learned Advocateon-Record appearing in support of this petition who has contended that the report submitted earlier in relation to 'election change' was not considered and that the learned Judge in Chambers was in error in ignoring the relevant facts and circumstances of the instant lis. According to him, the petitioner-Union had been highly prejudiced in the matter of direction for-election without any reasonable cause.
5. We have considered the arguments addressed at the Bar and have also perused the available material with the help of Mr. Siddiqui. It is not the case of the petitioner-Union that the observations made in the impugned judgment to the effect that it stuck to office of well over twelve years without elections; in a mala fide manner; the application for 'election change' was moved in the year 1999 i.e, almost 11 years after 1988 election and that its application establishes that the election change had been brought about by show of hands in the General Body Meeting without following the constitution of the Union itself.
6. Viewing the above facts of the cause alongside the contents of subsection (4) and (5) of section 8 of 1969-Ordinance, we find that the learned Judge in Chambers was quite right in observing that the request for 'election change' can be refused by the respondents-Registrar of Trade Unions on the ground that the same is in contravention of the provisions of 1969-Ordinance or in violation of the constitution of petitioner-Union itself.
7. No other point was urged.
8. Resultantly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.