' This petition was admitted on 8-5-1988, as it was contended by the petitioner that the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 who were strangers to the petitioner union had erroneously been held by the learned Vth Sind Labour Court as not to have been strangers. On 29-5-1988, the respondent No, 5 by an interim order was directed to resolve the controversy as to whether the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were the members of the petitioner union or not and thereafter the respondent No, 5 was further directed to approve the list of voters in accordance with the law and then hold elections of the office-bearers of the union within 4 weeks of the passing of the order. Now the date for the election has been fixed as 2-7-1988.
' The petitioner, through this application, seeks permission to restrain the respondent No, 5 from taking into consideration the list of the members of the union supplied by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2. The main ground of attack of Mr. Shaikh Haider, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that, according to an order passed by the respondent No, 5, the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 had been held to be non-members and consequently they have no locus stand to supply list of members to the respondent No,
5. It may be pointed out that the argument of Mr. Shaikh Haider is not supported by any legal provision. It may be further pointed out that holding of elections is an obligation, which the respondent No, 5 has to discharge purely by using his own discretion in the matter. The respondent No, 5 has to verify whether the persons, who had to cast their votes at the elections, are members of the union or not. This according to Mr. Barkat Ahmad Arain, who represents the respondent No, 5, has already been done and according to him, no person, who is not a member of the petitioner union, will be permitted to vote at the elections of the office-bearers. The undertaking given by Mr. Barkat Ahmad Arain, in my opinion, is sufficient to satisfy the petitioner that no non- member will be permitted to take part in the elections.
Consequently, I find no reason to grant the interim order as prayed in IA the application and the application is dismissed.