This appeal under section 8(7) of the I.R.O., 1969 presented on 27-8-1988 is directed against the letter dated 16-8-1988 whereby respondent No, 2 rejected the results of the elections informed by the appellant and it is prayed that both the, respondents be directed to either accept the said results or directions be issued to them to hold fresh elections under their supervision. Alongwith this appeal, the copy of the Constitution, the letter dated 7-6-1988 of the appellant and the impugned order have been filed.
2. Whereas, after service both the respondents have filed their parawise comments in writing followed by written arguments, alongwith copy of the letter dated 18-8-1983 of one Anwar Wasti, the General Secretary of Cantonment Board Karachi Labour Union, its reply dated 8-9-1983 by Assistant Director Labour, another letter dated 7-11-1983, another such letter dated 4-2-1984, the letter dated 25-6-1988 of one Muhammad Rasheed, the President of Cantonment Board Karachi Labour Union and statement of one Dilawar Khan &led 14-7-1988, the General Secretary.
3. This appeal came up for hearing on 22-10-1988. Heard Mr. Khalil-ur-Rehman, the representative for the appellant and Mr. Meer Muhammad Baluch, the representative of respondents.
4. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the last elections of the appellant Union were held on 20-2-1988 in accordance with the said constitution and since the tenure of the office- hearers is only for one year and since no election thereafter was held as such meeting of the managing committee was held on 25-5-1988 wherein decision to hold elections was taken in accordance with the Constitution after appointing Election. Commissioner who held the elections on 5-6-1988, and result of which was communicated to respondent No, 2 vide Annexure 'B' dated 7- 6-1988 but the same was rejected vide Annexure 'C' dated 16-8-1988 without taking into account the circumstances of the matter. Whereas was contended on behalf of the respondents that according to the record of the Cantonment maintained by respondent No, 1, the registered President of the Union is Mr. Rasheed (the deceased) and Mr. Dilawar Khan is its General Secretary who have not been impleaded as party in the present matter. It was further contended that in spite of availability of Mr. Dilawar Khan, the General Secretary of the previous Union, the meeting of the managing committee in the instant matter was called by Mr. Gul Muhammad, the Joint Secretary, which is contrary to the Constitution; besides the meeting was also not held at the registered address of the Union and for that reason, the impugned order was passed which is legal, just and in accordance with the Constitution. In support of the above contention, reliance has been placed on the copy of the statement of Mr. Dilawar Khan dated 14-7-1988 which shows that he was present in the office of the respondent on that day at 11 a.m. and that he did not have any knowledge of the meeting of the managing committee which appointed Election Commissioner for holding elections which were rejected by the impugned order. In the end, the representative for the appellant contended that the respondents instead of passing the impugned order should have held the fresh elections under their supervision.
5. The perusal of the record shows that Mr. Dilawar Khan, the previous General Secretary of the Union was very much available at Karachi and which has not been denied before this Court. It is also seen that according to Article 9(b) of the Constitution, Annexure 'A' to the memo. of appeal, it is the General Secretary who can issue notice for the calling of the meeting of the managing committee, whereas, in the instant case, admittedly the meeting of the managing committee was called by the Joint Secretary. Then there was no reply given in this Court to the contention of the respondents that the said meeting was not presided over by the President (previous) of the Appellant Union although he was available at Karachi, the appellants also failed to reply to the contention of the respondents that the impugned elections was not hold at the address notified/declared under sections 7(a) and 7(d) of the I.R.O., 1969 vide the above-mentioned letter dated 18-8-1983 of the appellant union.
6. Under these circumstances, it is held that the impugned order dated 16-8-1988 by the respondent No, 1 is just, proper and in accordance with the Constitution and, therefore, there is no reason to set it aside. However, as the normal term or tenure of the previous office-bearers has expired long back as such it would be just and proper that fresh elections are held under the direct supervision of respondent No,
1. In this connection, reliance is placed on 1984 PLC 1329 wherein, Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal maintained the impugned order of the Labour Court, whereby elections was held illegal but held that the Registrar should have been directed to hold elections under his supervisions and, therefore, modified the impugned order accordingly. Accordingly, for the circumstances discussed above and the reason given, the respondent No, 1 viz. the Registrar of Trade Unions is directed to hold fresh elections of the appellant Union under his supervision by 15th of December, 1988. Consequently, this appeal is allowed to that extent.