1. ' By this petition the petitioners have challenged the order dated 5-8-2002 passed by the Vth Sindh Labour Court at Karachi (Respondent No,1) passed in Appeal No,2 of 2002 under section 8(7) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 by which direction has been given to the Registrar to hold fresh election of the union under his supervision.
2. ' The facts of the matter are that the respondent No,6 namely, Atlas Honda Limited has its factory at SITE Karachi where it is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of motorcycles. The workers employed by the respondent No,6 have formed a trade union by the name of Atlas Group of Company Employees Union (the Petitioner No,3) and it is stated to be the CBA of the workers of the respondent No,6. It is stated that elections of the petitioner No,3 were held pursuant to which the petitioner No,1 Aziz ur Rehman and the petitioner No,2 Muhammad Iqbal were respectively elected as General Secretary and President of the petitioner No,3 and the results of the election were communicated to the Registrar of Trade Unions the respondent No,2 for notifying change of office-bearers of the petitioner No,3. Pursuant to such communication, the Registrar of Trade Unions/respondent No,2 issued his letter dated 30-4-2002 notifying the change of office-bearers in which the petitioner No,1 was shown as General Secretary while the petitioner No,2 was shown as the President of the respondent No,3 and the respondent No,5 Syed Ajmal Hussain Shah was shown as Vice-President-I. The name of the respondent No,4 Muhammad Zahid did not appear in the said notification of change of office-bearers issued by the respondent No,2. It further stated that the 'respondent No,2 issued another letter dated 12-6-2002 purporting to notify the change of office- bearers of petitioner No,3 by which the respondent No,4 was shown as Senior Vice-President and the respondent No,5 was shown as General Secretary. Against this notification of change of office- bearers dated 12-6-2002, the petitioners filed an appeal before the respondent No,1 which was contested by respondents No,4 and 5 and ultimately the order impugned was passed by the respondent No,l. Respondents 4 and 5 have filed parawise comments and counter-affidavit to which rejoinder has been filed by the petitioners. Formal counter-affidavit has also been filed by the respondent No .6.
3. ' Mr. Khalid Javed, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that on the basis of elections held of the petitioner No,3, respondent No,2 has notified the change of office-bearers vide his letter dated 30-4-2002 and after such change was notified the respondent No,2 had no basis of justification for issuing letter dated 12-6-2002 notifying further change in the office-bearers of the petitioner No,3 showing the respondent No,4 at Senior Vice-President and respondent No,5 as General Secretary. He has further contended that after the change of office-bearers notified by the respondent No,2 vide his letter dated 3-4-2002, there was no election of the petitioner No,3 nor any General Body Meeting of the petitioner No,3 was held for the removal of the petitioner No,1 from the post of General Secretary and induction the respondent No,5 as General Secretary of petitioner No,3. He has further contended that in the constitution of the petitioner No,3 there is no post of Senior Vice-President and the notification of the respondent No,4 as Senior Vice-President is patently illegal and without any basis. He has further contended that the respondent No,5 himself has signed a letter dated 31-5-2002 addressed to the respondent No,2 in which the respondent No,2 was informed that the change brought in the office-bearers pursuant to the election are the only office-bearers of the petitioner No,3 and that the respondent No,2 should not entertain any representation of any person or body in this regard. Learned counsel has further submitted that despite such record the respondent No,5 wrote a letter dated 8-6-2002 to the respondent No,2 notifying change in office-bearers of the petitioner No,3 and attached with it a statement containing the names of two persons namely that of respondent No,4 as Senior Vice-President and respondent No,5 as General Secretary. He further contended that in the letter dated 8-6-2002 the respondent No,5 did not mention as to how the change in office-bearers of the petitioner No,3 was brought nor the respondent No,5 submitted any record in support of such alleged change. He has submitted that the letter dated 12-6-2002 of the respondent No,2 was contrary to law and of no legal effect. He has further contended that the respondent No,1 in his impugned order has accepted the position that the change in the office bearers notified by the respondent No,2 vide his letter dated 30-4-2002 was correct and there was no basis of justification with the respondent No,2 to notify the change in office-bearers vide his letter dated 12-6-2002 showing the respondent No,4 as Senior Vice-President and the respondent No,5 as General Secretary. He has further contended that despite such finding, the respondent No,1 proceeded further in the impugned order that there is material on record to direct holding of fresh elections of the petitioner No,3. He stated that there was no material on the record to justify holding of fresh elections of the petitioner No .3 .
4. ' Mr. Khalid Imran, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4 and 5 has contended that petitioner are not aggrieved persons and they have no locus standi to file the present petition. He has further contended that the change notified by the respondent No,2 vide his letter dated 12-6- 2002 was not in contravention of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 or of the constitution of the Union and therefore no grievance against it can be raised by the petitioners. He has further contended that the Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan cannot go into the question of fact. He further argued that respondent No,5 has denied his signatures on the letter dated 31-5-2002 addressed to the respondent No,2 and has further submitted that Labour Court had no power to cancel the registration of change of office-bearers notified by the respondent No,2. He stated that after the' notification of change of office-bearers dated 12-6-2002 issued by the Registrar of Trade Unions by which the respondents No,4 and 5 were notified as Senior Vice- President and General Secretary respectively, the only mean provided by Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for resolving the problem is to hold fresh elections of the petitioner No,3. He has relied upon the case of Karachi Warehouse and Carriers Workers Union v. Pakistan Warehouse Carriers Workers (PLD 197,8 Karachi 417), and KMC and Sanitary and General Employees Union v.
5. Khalid Hafeez 1991 PLC 593.
6. ' I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel of the parties and have gone through the record.
7. On examining the impugned order, it is found that the Labour Court has reached conclusion that the change of office-bearers notified by the Registrar vide his order dated 12-6-2002 was not supported by any evidence and was in violation of the constitution of the petitioner No,3 Union and thus was not in accordance with law. However, while considering relief to the petitioners, relying upon case-law, it concluded that the Labour Court has no power to grant relief of cancellation of change of office-bearers notified by the Registrar but it has power to direct holding of fresh elections and accordingly ordered. Holding of fresh elections under the supervision of the Registrar of Trade Unions, respondents Nos.4 and 5 who were directly affected by the conclusion of the Labour Court that they were not validly registered as office-bearers have not challenged the order of Labour Court. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents Nos.4 and 5 against the impugned order cannot be considered. Therefore the only question that needs to be considered in this petition is whether the Labour Court had no power in law to quash/cancel/set aside the notification/order dated 12-6-2002 of change of office-bearers issued by the Registrar. Relevant provision of law on this subject is contained in subsections (4), (5) and (7) of section of 8 Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 which is reproduced as follows:-- " [(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 registered post by the Trade Union to the Registrar within fifteen days of such change...."
(5) The Registrar may refuse to register such change or alternation 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.
(6) ..
(7) In case there is a dispute in relation to the change of officers of a 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 apply or appeal to the. Labour Court, who shall within seven days of receipt of the application or appeal as the case may be, pass an order either directing the Registrar to register the change or make alteration in the constitution or in the officers of the Trade Unions or may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, direct the Registrar to hold fresh elections of the union under his supervision... ...] ' Counsel for the respondent Nos.4 and 5 has referred to the case of KMC Sanitary and General Employees Union v. Khalid Hafeez (1991 PLC 593) which is a decision of Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal in which it is held the under section 8(7) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 appeal lies to the Labour Court only in the case of refusal of Registrar to notify change in office bearer and not in the case where Registrar registers such change. Another judgment relied upon by the counsel for the respondent Nos.4 and 5 is in the case of Karachi Warehouse and Carrier Workers Union v.
8. Pakistan Warehouse Carrier Workers Union (PLD 1978 Karachi 417). 1 have examined this judgment and find that the question of change of office bearers of the Union was not directly in issue before the Court and no finding is recorded on the point whether appeal lies to labour Court when the Registrar registers change in office-bearers of a Union which change is disputed.
9. ' The matter regarding registration of change in the office-bearers of a Union pursuant to the provisions of subsection (4), (5) & (7) came directly for consideration in the case of Abdul Rauf v.
10. Registrar of Trade Union (1980 PLC 219) which is a decision of a full Bench of N.I.R.C. Wherein it was held that appeal lies to the Labour Court against the order of the Registrar not only in the case of refusal to approve the change in the office-bearers but even then approval is granted by him.
11. Further in the case of Syed Muzaffar Hussain Shah v. The Registrar of Trade Unions, Rawalpindi (1980 PLC 219) a Single Judge of the Lahore High Court at page No,221 has observed as follows:-- "10. A bare reading of section 8(7) shows that an appeal is provided both in case of dispute in relation to change of officers of a Trade Union or refusal on the part of the Registrar to register change under section 8(5). The conclusion by the Tribunal that no appeal lay is, therefore, not supported by the wording of the section.
11. The intention of the Legislature and the meaning becomes quite clear if we split the relevant portion of the section as under:- "Any officer or member of the Trade Union may appeal to the Labour Court---
(i) in case there is a dispute in relation to the change of the officers of a Trade Union, or
(ii) any Trade Union is aggrieved by the refusal of the Registrar under subsection (5)."
12. ' The rest of the subsection is about the obligation of the Court to decide the matter in 7 days and to give relief in one or the other way as it is appropriate in the circumstances of the case.
12. Again, the observations of the Labour Tribunal cannot be maintained for another simple reason.
13. The very purpose of this special law is to provide for settlement of the disputes of the workers through the Labour Court. The observation of the Tribunal that the matter be taken to the Civil Court, therefore, cuts across the very purpose of law and the intention of the Legislature. It may further be noted that whereas none of the cases cited in its support by the learned Tribunal are relevant to the point in issue, the view taken by the N.I.R.C. In Case No,12(5)/78 (Abdul Rauf General Secretary v. Registrar of Trade Unions), which the Tribunal did not follow, is correct. The impugned order is, therefore, liable to be set aside... ... ...."
14. ' Further in the case of Shamsur Rehman v. Presiding Officer Labour Court No,1, Karachi (1983 PLC 742) (sic) an Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court at page 745 has observed as follows:- ".. ... ...The language of subsection (7) shows that an aggrieved party Can approach the Labour Court in application, firstly, when there is any dispute in relation to the change of office bearers of a trade union and secondly, in appeal in case where the; Registrar refuses to approve the change of the office-bearers. The word "dispute" has a wider meaning than "refusal" and would cover even a case in which the change has been registered by the Registrar to give rise to a remedy in appeal to the office-bearers of the Union who have been replaced by the newly-elected office-bearers...
15. ' Furthermore in the case of S.M. Mukhtar Ahmed v. Abdul Hafeez Amjad (NLR 1998 Labour 68) a Division Bench of this Court at page 69 has observed as follows: ".. . The learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the said order passed by the learned Member of N.I.R.C. Mainly on the ground that the order is clearly against the earlier pronouncement of the superior Courts and the Full Bench of the N.I.R.C. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel on the cases of Syed Muzaffar Hussain Shah v. The Registrar Trade Unions Region Rawalpindi (1980 PLC 219), Shamsur Rehman v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court-1, Karachi (1982 PLC 742) and Abdur Rauf v. The Registrar of Trade Unions and others (1980 PLC 912). All these cases support the petitioners on the point that an appeal lies before the Labour Court against an order of Registrar not only refusing to register the change of office-bearers but also in case of grant of approval in respect thereof. We would like to point out in this regard that this is even clear from the plain reading of subsection (7) of section 8 of the I.R.O. Because appeal has been provided for against an order of the Registrar either in case where there is a dispute in relation to change of officers of a trade union or if any trade union is aggrieved by the refusal of the Registrar to register the change under subsection (5) of section 8. Consequently, it is clearly apparent on the fact of the order that the view taken by the learned Member of the Commission that an appeal would be competent only against an order refusing the change is not correct... ... "
16. The perusal of the above referred judgments will show that there is overwhelming consensus on the point that the Labour Court has jurisdiction to entertain and decide appeals which arise from the order of Registrar of Trade Unions where he not only refuses to accept the change of office- bearers of a Trade Union but also where he accepts the change if there is a dispute in relation to change of office-bearers of a Trade Union. In the present case the respondent No,1 Labour Court has concluded that the change in the office-bearers of the petitioner No,3 recorded by the Registrar of Trade Unions vide his order dated 12-6-2002 was not in accordance with the constitution of the Union and there was no justification with the Registrar of Trade Unions to have accepted such change. The Labour Court however did not proceed to quash/cancel/set aside the order dated 12-6-2002 of the Registrar of Trade Unions as it found that it has no jurisdiction or power to do so and further concluded that as these office-bearers did not enjoy full confidence and to undo the order of the Registrar dated 12-6-2002 the only remedy was to hold fresh elections.
17. In my view, such conclusion of the Labour Court was not in accordance with law as stated above the Labour Court possessed ample power to itself quash/cancel/set aside the order of the Registrar dated 12-6-2002.
18. ' In this view of the matter it is found that the Labour Court has not reached correct conclusion in law in directing holding of fresh elections. Accordingly the order of the Labour Court directing holding of fresh selection of petitioner No,3/Union under the supervision of the Registrar of Trade Unions is set aisde. Further Labour Court has assumed that it has no jurisdiction in law to quash/Cancel/set aside the Registrar's order dated 12-6-2002 in respect of which finding is recorded that it was not in accordance with law which assumption as per law laid down as quoted above including a Division Bench Judgment of this Court is found to be based on non-appreciation of correct law, therefore, this Court while exercising Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199. Of Constitution has to correct the error of law made by the Labour Court in refusing to quash/cancel/set aside the said order dated 12-6-2002 of the Registrar. In the circumstances the order of the Registrar of Trade Unions dated 12-6-2002 is quash/cancelled/set aside and in the above terms this Constitutional petition is allowed and disposed of alongwith C.M.A. No,1919 of 2002.