' Above-mentioned petition is directed against order dated 9th September, 1981 passed by respondent No. I. At present Pioneer Steel Mills Employees' Union is split into two factions-One, headed by Sufi Muhammad Ismail petitioner and the other led by Muhammad Ali respondent No.
2. Elections were held on 1st July, 1979. Registrar approved the same on 17th January 1979. Fresh elections were held on 6th July, 1980 whereby the petitioner and respondent No. 2 were elected as President and General Secretary respectively. According to petitioner, these elections were interim pending regular elections under constitution of the Union, Sufi Muhammad Ismail group eliminated Muhammad Ali group in the elections held on 16th July, 1981. On the other hand, the rival faction non-seated Sufi Muhammad Ismail as President in a no-confidence motion, Both the groups submitted their proceedings to respondent No. 1 for approval. Respondent No. 1 disapproved both the proceedings as they offended against legal and constitutional requirements. Both the groups have been directed to maintain status quo. So the petitioner and respondent No. 2 continue to hold their offices of President and General Secretary. Now the petitioner wants either approval of the election proceedings dated 16th July, 1981 or fresh elections, Muhammad Ali group has not challenged respondent No. 1 order, dated 9th September, 1981 anywhere. However petitioner's prayer is vehemently opposed by all the respondents.
2. Arguments have been heard, and pleas of the parties duly considered. Counsel of parties has also submitted written arguments.
3. Learned counsel of respondents Nos, 2 to 7 contends that the words "Trade Union" occurring in section 8 (7), L R.
0. Do not cover Pioneer Steel Mills Employees' Union which is C. B. A., and it is a separate entity.
Hence petition merits rejection on that score alone. This contention is untenable. Every C. B. A. Is a Trade Union which vice" versa is not true. A C. B. A. Trade Union falls within the purview of section 8 (7),
1. R.
0.
4. Learned counsel for respondents Nos. 2 to 7 has also raised the objection that this Court is debarred from the adjudication of the dispute after seven days from the date of institution of petition. This objection is also without force. There are several authorities to support the proposition that the period of seven days mentioned in section $ only directory in nature.
5. Third objection of respondents Nos. 2 to 7 relates to the effect of decision in Writ Petition No. 78/1981 dated 28th July, 1981 on this case. This objection is misconceived. Said decision of High Court dealt with a matter under section 34, I. R.
0. It does not operate as a bar to the maintainability of present petition under section 8 (7), I. R.
0.
6. Yet another objection of respondents Nos. 2 to 7 relates to the prayer of petitioner for fresh elections. It is asserted that if this Court's orders holding of fresh elections before the expiry of term of two years as provided in Article 14 of the constitution of the Union, it would constitute contravention of the constitution. The violation will lead to cancellation of registration of the Union under section 11 (i) (ii) of I.R.O. Power given to Labour Courts under section 8, I. R. O. For ordering fresh elections can hardly be questioned, There is no ambiguity. Very purpose of section 8 will be defeated if proposition propounded by counsel of respondents Nos. 2 to 7 is accepted. Objection is rejected.
7. Learned counsel of the petitioner has argued that activities of the Union stand paralysed due to serious differences between the two factions. Since elections dated 6th July, 1980 were interim, and there being no such provision in the constitution, regular elections held under the constitution (Article 14) dated 16th July, 1981 ought to have been approved by the Registrar. Even in the election- notice dated 11th June, 1980, it was clarified that annual elections would be held in January, 1981.
Respondents dispute the above assertions, and maintain that there is no plausible reason to hold fresh elections, when term of the office-bearers is yet to expire on 6th July, 1982. Respondents also dispute validity and legality of elections dated 16th July, 1981.
8. Muhammad Ali group made an abortive bid to dislodge the petitioner from the president ship of the Union. Sufi Muhammad Ismail group aimed at complete elimination of the rival party from the executive of the Union. Both failed before the Registrar. One is not prepared to tolerate supremacy of the other. It is to be noted that elections dated 6th July, 1980 were held on the basis of a compromise. Both groups participated, and won seats in the Executive. Article 25 of constitution of the Union provides procedure for the removal of an office-bearer through a motion of no- confidence. This plea of petitioner is utterly untenable that elections held on 6th July, 1980 were interim in the sense that the term ended in January, 1981, and hence regular elections dated 16th July, 1981 were valid and are in conformity with the provisions of the constitution. If elections dated 6th July, 1980 were not for full term of two years, it should have been so provided in some proceedings of Union duly approved by the Registrar. Hence elections dated 6th July, 1980 cannot be taken as mid-term or interim. It is, therefore, safe to conclude that term of office-bearers elected on 6th July, 1980 will expire on 6th July, 1982 and not a single day earlier. Registrar, Trade Unions rightly disapproved the elections held on 16th July, 1981. Petitioner has failed to make out any case for interference in the impugned order, which is proper, just and legal. No lawful ground for ordering fresh elections exists.
9. As a result of findings above, the petition fails and it is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.