DECISION This is au, appeal against the order of the Labour Court allowing the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondent and dismissing the industrial dispute filed under section 32(1) (a), Industrial Relations Ordi--nance.
2. The Union raised an industrial dispute by serving a demand notice dated 28th January, 1976. The notice of strike was served on 9th February, 1976. Conciliation proceedings having been failed an application under section 32(1) (a) of Industrial Relations Ordinance was filed in the Labour Court on 14th May, 1976
3. A preliminary objection was taken on behalf of the respondent that the application was not maintainable as Faizullah who had served demand notice as well as strike notice was not the General Secretary and therefore, both the notices were illegal and could not form the basis of the proceedings which were subsequently taken. This ground found favour with the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court and dismissed the application. Aggrie--ved by this, the present appeal had been filed.
4. It has been urged on behalf of the appellant that Faizullah was the General Secretary having been elected in November, 1975 and the change was also notified to the Registrar of Trade Unions.
Consequently, He was competent to serve demand notice and strike notice. On the other hand, it was alleged on behalf of the respondent that the change was not accepted by the Registrar till August, 1976 and, therefore, so long the change was not accepted, Faizullah could not act as General Secretary and he was in competent to initiate the proceedings.
5. I am inclined to accept the contention raised on behalf of the respond--ent. On this point there are already two decisions of mine. One is in the case of Employees' Union v. Messrs Bukhara Hotel (1975 PLC 786), and other is an unreported decision in the case of Corning Glass Employees' Union v. Messrs Corning Glass (Pak.) Ltd. And other (2). In both these decisions I had held that unless the change was accepted by the Registrar it could not be given effect to. I have no reason to change my view. It has been canvassed on behalf of the appellant that the law did not require that unless the change was accepted by the Registrar the General Secretary could not act as such. But the require--ment was only that the change had to be notified to the Registrar and he could only reject if the alteration contravened any of the provisions of the Ordinance or was in violation of the constitution of the Trade Union. Of course, it does not expressly state that so long the change has not been accepted by the Registrar the Secretary cannot function as such, but when the power of refusal has been confirmed upon the Registrar under sec--tion 12(5) of section 8 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, it seems that the acceptance of the change is a condition precedent to the initiation of the proceedings by the General Secretary and/or the other office-bearers. The contention that the acceptance was to be automatic and the subsequent acceptance by the Registrar should be treated to be retrospective in order to validate the demand notice and strike notice served prior to the acceptance deserves no consideration and is unacceptable in view of my previous decisions as well as what has been stated further in this case.
6. In result the appeal is dismissed.