' HAFIZ TARIQ I.ASIM, J.--- Brief facts leading to this appeal are that the appellant while, serving in the power house as generator operator resigned from service, however, remained attached with C.B.A. In the name of Amin Workers Union, but later on he was directed to stop correspondence with various authorities including Amin Brothers (Pvt.) Ltd. As General Secretary which caused a prejudice to the appellant who moved an application before the NIRC on 1-8-2002 praying that the impugned letter, dated 19-7-2002 be set aside and the respondent-company be directed not to commit any unfair labour practice against the appellant. The petition before the NIRC was transferred to the learned Labour Court No,V, Sargodha vide order, dated 9-9-2002 under section 22-A(10)(c) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for further proceedings where both the parties led evidence, argued the case, however, the appellant's application was dismissed vide judgment, dated 1-6-2003. The learned counsel for the appellant argued the case and submits with vehemence that the impugned judgment is against Article 17 of the Constitution of Pakistan because the appellant is entitled to become a member of the Executive body whereas the learned Labour Court wrongly held contrary to the provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgment.
2. Arguments heard; available record perused.
3. It is important to note that the appellant is no more employee of the organization where he wants to remain as General Secretary of a C.B.A. And this very fact that a person who does not fall within the category of workman and is asking for a relief for which he does not entitle is a noval situation. This very controversy was already resolved in a reported case Habib Sugar Mills Ltd. v.
Registrar of Trade Unions and others 20001 PLC 441 wherein it is held that "the provisions of Industrial Relations Ordinance, say only that 75% of the office-bearers of a trade union shall be from amongst the workmen actually engaged or employed in the industry 25% can be outsider but such an interpretation that these 25% can be any person even if they are non-workmen would be contrary to the essence and spirit of law. Some rational interpretation will be that 25% outsiders are also necessarily be in the category of workmen though not employed in the employment where the union if applying for registration".
' After hearing both the parties at some length and following the law laid down (supra) I do not find any force in the present appeal, which is dismissed accordingly.