The above stated three Petitions bearing Nos. 13(164), 7(136) of 1987 and 7(3) of 1988 are proposed to be disposed of through this order as they involve a common question of law.
2. The facts in case of Petition No. 13(164) of 1987 are that Pakistan Telecommunication Union (Traffic) is organised at Central, Regional Divisional and Sub-Divisional levels. The Central Executive of the Union appointed one Danish Raza as Union's Election Commissioner to hold elections of the union at Regional and Divisional levels. Petitioner 'a bona fide member' of the union alleges that the Regional General Secretary and Danish Raza were enrolling members of their own choice and not enrolling the members of Petitioner's group or allowing them to file nomination papers. The petitioner by way of abundant caution wanted to submit his membership form but the regional office-bearers including Nazakatullah Babar refused to accept the forms of the following members which may be sent to the Election Commissioner:--
(1) Gul Hassan.
(2) Abbas Ali.
(3) Muhammad Safdar.
(4) Obedullah."
3. The petitioner prays for a direction against the said Danish Raza to:
(i) hold elections in a fair and impartial manner.
(ii) to allow the petitioner and his group to contest the elections.
(iii) to allow members of the union to cast their votes.
4. The facts in case of Petitions Nos. 7(136) of 1987 and 7(3) of 1988 are that Pakistan Telecommunication Line Staff Union is also organised at Central, Regional, Divisional and Sub- Divisional levels. Elections are held in the said union in pursuance of directions of the Central Executive of the union. A circular letter dated 22-9-1987 notifying the union's election allegedly stated that the election was to be held on 4-10-1987. The nomination papers were to be filed by the 30th September, 1987. The elections were allegedly not held on that date but were held on 14-10- 1987 in violation of the directive of the Central Executive. In the former petition viz. No. 7(136) of 1987 petitioner Sabir Hussain and respondent Sher Wali were contesting for the post of Divisional Secretary. In the latter petition viz. No. 7(3) of 1988, petitioner Jalalabad and respondent Gul Rahman were candidates for the post of Divisional President. In both cases both the petitioners boycotted the elections because the elections according to them were void and grossly violative of the provisions of the union's constitution. The result was that respondent Sher Wali was elected as General Secretary and respondent Gul Rahman was elected as President. The petitioners in both petitions pray that the elections in Peshawar Telegraph Division may be held as null and void and respondents restrained from holding the posts of the Divisional Secretary and the President respectively. An interim order restraining the respondents in both cases from holding the said posts in the meanwhile also are prayed for.
5. The respondents through their written statements urge that since no office-bearer of the Regional, Divisional or Sub-Divisional Body is recognised as officer of a union and is not required to be registered with the N.I.R.C. under law i.e. section 8 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 as such the Registrar has no jurisdiction in the matter.
6. Learned Representative states that Article 15 of union's constitution in case of Petitions Nos. 7(3) of 1988 and 7(136) of 1987 provides that the members of the union's General Council would elect the Central Office-Bearers, of the union. Article 17 provides that all members of the Regional Body and the Presidents and the General Secretaries of the Divisonal Body shall be the members of the General Council. Similar provisions exist in the constitution of union relating to Petition No. 13(164) of 1987. His argument briefly is:-- "At the time when change of the Central Executive would be submitted to the Registrar of Trade Unions for approval and there is a dispute relating to casting of vote by an illegally elected or nominated Divisional President or Divisional Secretary, the Registrar would be legally bound to adjudicate upon the vires of Divisional elections. The Registrar Trade Unions has, therefore, been legally empowered to interfere in the Divisional Body elections under section 8(4) read with section 8(5) of the I.R.O., 1969 which lays down that Registrar may refuse the change if it is in violation of the constitution of the union."
Further since Presidents and General Secretaries of the Regional Bodies are the members of the Central Executive of the union, Registrar must take notice of gross and patent illegalities in their elections.
7. I have had the benefit of the written arguments of both parties on this question of law.
8. No directive as prayed for in these three petitions could be issued because the law only envisages the registration of the change of officers of a union and not its Regional/Divisional bodies. The Registrar is not concerned how the trade unions manage their internal elections of non-officers or members of electoral college. If the Registrar of Trade Unions is to interfere in the election of various Divisional Bodies whose Presidents and General Secretaries are among others included among the members of General Council of the union then it would amount to treating every single member of the General Council as an officer of a union which would be against the law. Law requires only the change of officers of the union to be registered. Word 'Officers' relating to a union has been defined as any member of the executive thereof excepting an auditor or legal adviser. Further since a part cannot be equal to whole a Regional or a Divisional Body is not a Union and its officer is not an officer of the Union, and the Registrar is not to interfere in these Divisional Body elections as prayed. The argument that since in case of "future change of officers" of the union the Registrar will have to go into the sires of Divisional level election, and therefore, he should interfere now, is hypothetical and based on apprehensions, and is therefore, untenable.
9. Further the N.I.R.C. has powers only under Regulation 32 of N.I.R.C. (Procedure and Functions)
Regulations, 1973 to issue directions and those are to prohibit only an unfair labour practice which is likely to occur. If Danish Raza Election Commissioner holds the. election of a Regional Divisional Body of union even in a biased or partial manner or elections in the Divisional body in Telegraph Division, Peshawar were conducted in gross violation of union's constitution still no unfair labour practice would be committed.
10. As for elections to the offices of Presidents and the Secretaries of Regional Bodies of unions who by virtue of their offices occupy the membership of the Central Executive of the Union, as long as the names of such officers of the Union are not notified under section 8(5) to the Registrar the change could not be registered Only if that condition is satisfied does the Registrar acquire the limited jurisdiction to register or to refuse to register the change. He has no powers to stop electoral irregularities, order fair elections, allow petitioners to contest elections or to cast votes etc. He can file proceedings for cancellation of the registration of the union for violating its constitution.
11. Learned representative has urged that by not issuing directory orders to Danish Raza etc. and by not stopping the gross and patent irregularities in the elections of the executive body members of the union wrong would be perpetuated which is not the purpose of law. He thus seeks directory orders for Danish Raza as stated in para. 2 (ante). On another account also it cannot be done. I.R.O., 1969 is a special legislation, it prescribes its own remedies and procedures about matters concerning trade union elections, registration, referenda etc. When a particular remedy or a particular procedure is provided in a law to deal with a particular situation only that remedy or procedure has to be availed. Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 does not envisage directives such as prayed but proceedings for violation of its constitution by the union under section 10(ii).
The prayer cannot therefore be granted for lack of jurisdiction.
12. As for Petitions Nos. 7(3) of 1988 and 7(136) of 1987 as already stated those being the cases of election of the officers of Divisional Bodies whose change the Registrar is not empowered to register under section 8, the prayer in both those petitions cannot be granted for lack of jurisdiction.
13. The learned representative has also presented some decisions by Lahore and Sindh High Courts including the cases of Abid Hussain v. Khalid Rashid (leading to petition) and a decision in Case No. 13(143) of 1986, N.I.R.C's Full Bench decision in Appeal No. 12(48) of 1986 (in which I had the honour to participate as Member-I) and a decision in Constitutional Petition No. D-167 of 1987 by the learned Sindh High Court. None of these cases however needs to be discussed here as this point was neither mooted nor discussed in any of those decisions. A judgment is obviously an authority for a point mooted or discussed therein as held in Messrs Agro Marketing Corporation Limited, Lahore v.
H Pakistan and 2 others PLD 1982 Lahore 20 and not for points neither mooted nor discussed therein.
14. Under the circumstances all these petitions are returned to the petitioners for lack of jurisdiction. 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.