1. ' C.M.A. No,6563 of 2002: Listed application under Order 7, rule 11 seeks for rejection of plaint in suit on the ground inter alia that the suit is barred under section 12 of the Trade Organizations Ordinance, 1961, sections 31, 32, 33 and 34 of the Arbitration Act and lastly that the plaintiff had already invoked arbitration proceeding. Suit is as such not maintainable. No counter-affidavit to the listed application has been filed. Alongwith this application, application under Order 39, Rule 4, C.P.C. Being C.M.A. No,6562 of 2002 was also fixed for hearing seeking modification of the orders whereby the result in respect of defendant No,2 was directed not to be announced. By consent of the parties the application under Order 7, Rule 11 was heard. Plaint was rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 alongwith all other applications pending in this suit vide short order, dated 1-10-2002, for the reasons which follow now.
2. ' Briefly stating the facts as could be gleaned from the pleadings are that the plaintiff claims to be member of the defendant No,1, Chambers of Commerce and Industries, Karachi. Plaintiff in the pleading has made serious allegations as to the illegality and irregularity being committed by the defendant No,1 in the conduct of its day to day affairs more particularly, plaintiff is aggrieved by the amendments, alteration, addition and modification made in its Article and Memorandum of Association carried out at the extraordinary Geeneral Meeting, dated 17-8-2002 and so also has serious reservation as to the qualification and eligibility of defendant No,2 Mian Naseer Hayatt Maggoo as candidate for managing committee at the General Election scheduled for 26-9-2002.
3. Plaintiff has sought a declaration against the aforesaid purported illegal action, consequential injunctive relief. Ad interim orders seeking direction against implementation of the impugned amendments, alteration, addition and modification in the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the defendant No,1 and so also from holding of the General Election and against the participation of the defendant No,2 as a candidate.
4. ' Mr. Khalid Javaid learned counsel for the defendants seeks rejection of the plaint on the ground already narrated above, it was inter alia, contended by Mr. Khlaid Javaid that Trade Organizations Ordinance, 1961, is a complete Code in itself and in cases of dispute of any nature whatsoever remedy is provided therein, he further contends that the impugned addition, alteration and/or amendments in the Articles and Memorandum of Association were necessary under the peculiar circumstances of the case. According to him no illegality and/or irregularity were committed in achieving such object which were made strictly in accordance with section 8 of the Trade Organizations Ordinance, 1961, which requires approval of the Federal Government, which has since been obtained he has drawn my attention to Annexure 'F' to the plaint, which is the sanction of approval by the competent authority in the Ministry of Commerce, Government of Pakistan. All the proposed amendments were approved excepting 3 amendments mentioned therein. It was therefore, contended that the Government had applied its mind-while granting such approval. It is contended that the amendments were approved by the Managing Committee on 6-7-2002, same were approved by the General Body on 17-7-2002. Consequently through letter, dated 19-8-2002, approval was sought from the Government of Pakistan which was granted as referred to above on 26-8-2002. He further points that if any person is aggrieved by any amendments made in the Articles and Memorandum of Association, remedy is provided under section 9(f) of the Ordinance, 1961. He contends that arbitration has already been invoked by the plaintiff. Mr. Khalid Javaid further contends that, even if the elections are held and same are found to be invalid on any count then also the election could be annulled by the D.T.O. Who has jurisdiction in the matter. It was next contended that the plaintiff is not a candidate in the election which were already held on 26-9- 2002. He therefore, contends that plaintiff has no locus standi to challenge the eligibility of the defendant No,2. Mr. Khalid Javaid has placed reliance on unreported judgments Abdul Razzak Raiwani v. Messrs M. Y. Industries (R.A. No,87 of 1984), Mr. Waqar Mannoo v. All Pakistan Textile Mills Associate (Suit No,1346 of 1999) and Messrs Macsons, Proprietorship Concern v. Chamber of Commerce and others (Suit No,1264 of 2000). Messrs Khalid Hameed and Yasin Azad learned counsel for the plaintiff contends that remedy under section 12 of the Ordinance 1961 is not adequate. They concede that arbitration proceeding has already been filed by the plaintiff, according to them such proceeding will take time before it could be decided and Civil Court has ultimate jurisdiction even if bar is contained in statute in support they relied upon Mr. Muhammad Jamil Asghar v. The Improvement Trust, Rawalpindi (PLD 1965 SC 698) and Hamid Hussain v.
5. Government of West Pakistan and others (1974 SCM R 356).
6. ' From the bare perusal of section 9 it is evident that the affairs of the Trade Organization are managed, regulated and conducted by the Director Trade Organization (DTO), who besides other powers conferred under the Ordinance enjoys powers under section 9(f) of the Ordinance 1961, to cancel, suspend or modify any resolution adopted modify or any decision taken by the General Body or the Executive Committee of the Trade Organization. In terms of clause (g) thereof, DTO is duly armed with authority to take such necessary measures for the smooth, orderly and efficient functioning in of any Trade Organization so much so, in case where the DTO is satisfied, the Executive Committee may be suspended and if the circumstances so warrant the Government may appoint administrator, Contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the approval of the Government of Pakistan in relation to the Articles and. Memorandum were obtained subsequent to its approval by the general body is against the provision of section 8 thereof.
7. Contentions are not sustainable, what section 8 of the Ordinance, 1961 mandates is that before bringing any change in Articles or memorandum by the Trade Organization prior approval of the appropriate Government is obtained. As discussed in the narrative above, such sanction seeking amendments was obtained after same were approved by the General Body. It matters least, whether sanction was obtained prior to the approval of General .Body or after it. Every act including the one impugned through this suit could effectively be challenged as provided for under the Ordinance, 1961, itself. Even interim injunction or orders could effectively be solicited from the D.T.O.
8. It is stated by the learned counsel Mr. Khalid Hameed that the ing approval could not be effectively challenged as same were passed by the Federal Government. On the face of it contention is fallacious when the law provides a particular mechanism for impugning a particular action then such remedy could be availed in the manner provided for under the law, itself. On the own showing of the plaintiff amendments in Articles of Association were approved by the General body, same could have been challenged in terms of clause (f) to section 9 of the Ordinance 1961.
9. ' It is conceded that the plaintiff is not a contesting candidate. Another aspect of the matter is that the plaintiff has impugned the amendments made in the Articles of Association and so also the eligibility of the defendant No,2 in the arbitration proceedings, copy whereof has already been filed alongwith plaint as Annexure 'G' thereto relevant claim therein is almost similar to the one prayed for in this suit. It may be observed that in terms of section 9(e) of the Ordinance the plaintiff could challenge the result of the election within 30 days from the date of announcement and DTO after being satisfied that any illegality or irregularity was committed in the election, may annul the same. The plaintiff having invoked the provision of arbitration could effectively obtain the remedy by pursuing the same. In somewhat similar circumstances in Suit No,1344 of 1999 (Macsons v.
10. Chambers of Commerce and Industries) plaint was rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 and the Court deprecated member of the registered association brininging such matter to the Court. Similar cases which went up to Hon'ble Supreme Court being Civil Appeal No,13-K/86 (Abdul Razzak Rajwani v. M. Y. Industries) after reference to section 9 of the Ordniance 1961, held as under:-- ' The powers given in the above section are vast and all-embracing which include the power to cancel, suspend or modify any resolution adopted by or any decision taken by the General Body or the Executive Committee of the Trade Organization vide clause (f). The Director of Trade Organization is empowered to take necessary steps for smooth, orderly and efficient functioning of any such Trade Organization as provided in clause (g).
11. ' Section 10 of the Ordinance even provides for the suppression of the Executive Committee and appointment of Administrator where the Central Government is of the opinion that the affairs of the registered trade organization are not being properly managed and that the interests of trade and industry so require. In the event of suppression of the Executive Committee the Administrator appointed under section 10 has to manage and take over the affairs of the trade organization under the supervision and control of the Director as provided in section 11 of the Ordinance.
12. ' The Ordinance is thus a complete code which provides for regulation and control of the Organization as well as makes provision for effective remedies in case of mismanagement of the Organization.
13. ' The provisions of section 12 of the Ordinance are applicable notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, or the Articles or Memorandum of a registered Trade organization. No suit or other legal proceedings can be instituted or commenced against a registered trade organization or any member thereof or any member of the Executive Committee of such trade organization questioning the validity or propriety of any act or proceedings of such trade organization or the Executive Committee or election or appointment to such Committee or body by any member of such trade organization unless such member has made an application referring the matter to the Arbitration Tribunal constituted for the purpose of deciding such reference by the Federation of Pakistan Chambers of Commerce and Industry registered under the Act.
14. ' It may be observed that any interference with the affairs of an elected body through Court proceedings is undesirable. The suit, therefore, merits to be dismissed and the Receiver discharged so that status quo ante be maintained and the General Body Meeting be convened.
15. ' Since the effective remedy is provided under the Ordinance 1961 as discussed above and more particularly since the plaintiff has already invoked one of such remedy by filing arbitration proceedings the suit is barred under section 12 of the Ordinance, 1961. The application listed was allowed and the plaint was rejected alongwith all the pending applications.
16. Plaint rejected.