' Petitioner Ali Muhammad son of Yousuf, styling himself as the General Secretary of Adam's Tea Workers' Union, has challenged the order of the Sind Labour Court No. 1, dated 20-7-1980. By that order the appeal filed by respondent No, 2 Amir Ali son of Asghar Ali, against the order of the Registrar of Trade Unions, accepting the petitioner as General Secretary of the Union was allowed and the Registrar of Trade Unions was directed to hold fresh elections under his supervision within two months of the date of the order.
2. The facts giving rise to the filing of the instant petition as stated by the petitioner are as follows:-
3. The petitioner who is permanent worker in the establishment known as Adam Tea Blending Factory, is the General Secretary of Adams Tea Workers' Union, a Trade Union duly registered and certified as C. B. A. For the workers employed by the aforesaid establishment. There was dispute in relation to the change of office-bearers arising out of the Registrar of Trade Unions, accepting the change submitted to him by respondent No, 2 vide his letter dated 2-2-1978 and accepting the aforesaid respondent as General Secretary of the Union in place of the petitioner. The petitioner had challenged the aforesaid acceptance contained in letter dated 2-2-1978 of the Registrar, Trade Unions by filing appeal before the Sind Labour Court No. 1. He had impleaded as respondents all those persons claiming to be the office-bearers of the Union. During the pendency of the aforesaid appeal a joint application was made before the Labour Court that the appeal be disposed of as the appellant was prepared to hold annual general elections of the Union by September, 1979. The aforesaid application dated 24-7-1979 was allowed and disposed of the very same day.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that acting as General Secretary of the Union in accordance with the orders passed by the Sind Labour Court No. 1, he made all necessary arrangements for holding of elections and called a meeting of the general body of the Union on 22-9-1979. In the aforesaid meeting he was elected as General Secretary alongwith other office bearers and such list of office- bearers was submitted to the Registrar of Trade Unions under section 8 of the 1. R.
0., 1969. The respondent No, 2 also had convened a general body meeting on 27-9-1979 for the same purpose to hold elections but the petitioner and other office-bearers of the Union had no knowledge of the holding of the meeting convened by respondent No,
2. The respondent No, 2 also submitted list of office-bearers alleged to have been elected on 27-9-1979. The relevant record was produced before the authority concerned and there was joint meeting held in the office of Assistant Director Labour (Central Division) Karachi. After due verification of relevant record and after holding several meetings the Registrar of Trade Unions accepted the change of office- bearers as in the list submitted by the petitioner, accepting him as the General Secretary of the Union. The Registrar, rejected the change in office-bearers as suggested in the list submitted by respondent No, 2 by his order dated 16-12-1979.
5. Respondent No, 2, challenged the aforesaid order of the Registrar of Trade Unions by filing an appeal under section 8(7) of the I. R.
0., 1969, in the First Sind Labour Court (respondent No. 1).
6. The petitioner has challenged the order of respondent No. 1 in the aforesaid appeal mainly on the following grounds:-
(a) That although all the office-bearers were parties as respondents in the appeal decided by the impugned order; no notice about the appeal was given to the petitioner and some of the other office-bearers who were, therefore, denied opportunity of hearing before the matter was decided by passing of the impugned order,
(b) That holding of the general body meeting by respondent No, 2 on 27-9-1979 was illegal, incompetent and unauthorised as under the verdict of respondent No. 1 the petitioner had been directed to hold the elections and the aforesaid orders had been passed on a joint application as a consent order by which the pending appeal had been disposed of.
' On the other hand the respondent No, 2 in his counter-affidavit specifically stated that the petitioner had held no elections on 22-9-1979 in accordance with the consent order dated 24-7- 1979 passed by respondent No. 1. It is his case that the petitioner had submitted forged documents regarding elections to the Registrar of Trade Unions. It is further the case of respondent No, 2 that the petitioner was not on duty from June, 1977, and therefore, he, the respondent No, 2 had undertaken the duty of arranging elections in his capacity as Joint Secretary of the Union in accordance with Article 10 of the Constitution of Adams Tea Workers' Union. According to him elections were held on 27-9-1980, with the prior permission of the Registrar of Trade Unions and he has attached copy of letter dated 23-9-1979 of the Registrar of Trade Unions to support his contention in the counter-affidavit. According to respondent No, 2 the petitioner was informed by intimation given by Registered Post Acknowledge Due about the Schedule of the elections. The list of office-bearers submitted by the petitioner earlier to the Registrar of Trade Unions was without knowledge of respondent No, 2 and on coming to know about the same objections were made to the approval of the list given to the Registrar, Trade Unions. He has attached with the counter- affidavit the affidavits of 51 workers deposing that no elections had been held by the petitioner on 22-9-1979. It is significant to note that the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No, 2 and affidavits of 51 workers to the effect that no elections were held on 22-9-1979 have not been contested by the petitioner inasmuch as no rejoinder was filed by him.
7. It is a matter of fact whether and if so when the elections of office bearers of the Adams Tea Workers' Union were held. Article 10 of the Constitution of the Trade Unions inter alia provides that the office-bearers including the General Secretary shall be elected at a general body meeting for a term of one year. In the impugned order dated 20-7-1980 it has been observed that the status of petitioner was challenged by respondent Ali Muhammad before the Court in Appeal No, I of 1978 as there was dispute over the matter whether the Registrar had rightly acknowledged the petitioner as General Secretary vide his letter dated 2-2-1978 but a compromise had been reached whereby the Union represented by Ali Muhammad, General Secretary was directed to hold fresh elections by the end of September, 1979, vide order of the respondent No, I dated 24-7-1979. It has further been observed that there was contradictory evidence on the fact as to whether the elections were in fact held or not.
8. In this Court also as already stated there are two different versions about holding of elections and while the petitioner has laid stress on the Registrar of Trade Unions accepting him as General Secretary after looking into record etc. Respondent No, 2 in support of the contention that in actual fact the elections of office-bearers of the Union were held on 27-9-1979 has produced the letter of the Registrar of Trade Unions dated 23-9-1979 on the subject of permission to hold general body meeting for the purpose of elections of office-bearers which shows that such permission was granted by the Registrar for holding the general body meeting of the Union on 27-9-1979 for the aforesaid purpose.
9. It is well-settled legal position that the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction is concerned only with the question whether the Court or tribunal below acted within its Jurisdiction. The impugned order as already B stated has been challenged firstly on the ground that in view of the compromise and the consent dated 24-7-1979 it was not open to respondent No, 2 to challenge the elections before respondent No. 1. However, it is not the election held by the petitioner which has been challenged but it is the very factum of elections held on 22-9-1979 which has been totally denied and on the contrary it is the contention on behalf of the respondent No, 2 that since in spite of information about the programme of elections the petitioner did not hold the elections and remained absent and that as Joint Secretary by virtue of powers under Article 10 of the Constitution of the Union he had held the elections.
10. With regard to the ground that the petitioner was not .Given an opportunity of being heard, it may be pointed out that in the impugned order the petitioner is shown as respondent No,
6. The applicant before the First Sind Labour Court was Amir Ali (respondent No, 2 herein) and it is apparent that no appearance was made by Ali Muhammad son of Yousuf. In the order it is quite obvious that the petitioner had been referred to as the appellant as he was the person who was contending that he was the General Secretary of the Union and the order further discloses that Mr. Riaz Bloch, had appeared for the appellant. In any case since this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution, does not usually go into the questions of fact on which the impugned decision is based and further since it is not clear from the record before this Court that the impugned order was not without jurisdiction and the factual position could be considered to be in accordance with the finding of the learned Sind Labour Court No. 1, this is not a case in which the discretionary relief under Article 199 could be granted. I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order in which there is a direction to the Registrar of Trade Union to hold fresh elections under his supervision. The petition is according dismissed but in the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.