' 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.