' NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, J.---In this petition, the petitioners, who claim to be the founder members and office-bearers of Pakistan Warehouse Carriers Workers Union (respondent No,4) have challenged the decision dated 7-11-1989 of the learned Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal allowing the revision application filed by respondent No,1 and have further prayed that the elections of office-bearers of respondent No,4 Union by the Registrar Trade Unions, Sindh (respondent No,3) on 2-7-1988 be declared as void and allow the petitioners to hold fresh elections according to the constitution of respondent No,4 Union. Mr. Shaikh Haider, Advocate, has appeared on behalf of the petitioners.
Mr.Suleman Habibullah, Advocate represents respondent No,1, Mr. Salahuddin Khan Gandapur, Advocate, has appeared for respondents Nos.2 and 4 and Mr. Muhammad Tasleem, Advocate, has appeared for respondent No,7, No one else appeared for the other respondents. We have heard learned counsel who are present.
2. The entire case of the Petitioners rests upon their contention that as respondents Nos.1 and 2 were found to be strangers by the Registrar and accordingly could not be members of the respondent No,4 Union, the list supplied by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to the Registrar giving the names of 1974 persons as members of the Union was illegally accepted by the Registrar of Trade Unions and as such participation of the said persons in the elections held on 2-7-1988 was illegal and the said elections are viod.
3. This case has a chequered history. However, it may be mentioned that an earlier Constitutional Petition No,S-39/88 filed by the Petitioners was admitted by a learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 8-5-1988 observing that the contention raised by the Petitioners that the Labour Court without having any material on record had concluded that respondents Nos.1 and 2 were not strangers required consideration. When that petition came up for hearing on 29-5-1989, the Registrar of Trade Unions was directed by the learned Single Judge to resolve the controversy as to whether respondents Nos.1 and 2 were members of the Union in question and he was also directed to approve the list of voters in accordance with the law and thereafter to hold elections of office- bearers of respondent No,4 Union within 4 weeks. Pursuant to the said directions in order dated 29- 5-1988 in Constitutional Petition No,S-39/88, the Registrar of Trade Unions by his report dated 25-6- 1988 found that respondents Nos.1 and 2 could not be included in the list of the voters in the elections of the respondent No 4 Union as they were office-bearers of other industry wise trade Unions. However, as regards the finalization of the list of voters to take part in the elections, in para. 3 of the report dated 25-6-1988, the Registrar stated as follows:- "That a list of 1874 members was produced by M/s. Fateh Muhammad Taleh Muhammad and another list of 706 members by Mr. Abid Askani, General Secretary of Pakistan Warehouse Carriers Workers Union. In support of the list of 1874 members, copies of subscription receipts of the past years in the name of Union were produced. It has come on the record that the Union had stopped issuing subscription receipts to the individuals regularly and the payment of contribution is deducted by Jamadars at the time of making, payment of wages to the workers, therefore, this list of 1874 workers has been accepted together with list of 706 members produced by the Union. Now the total list of voters as prepared by this office comes to 2580."
' Thereafter elections of respondent No,4 Union were held under the supervision of Registrar Trade Unions on 2-7-1988 on the basis of the list thus finalised. The said Constitutional Petition No, S- 39/88 then came-up for regular hearing before a learned Single Judge of this Court 26-9-1988 when the counsel appearing for respondents Nos.1 and 2 produced a copy of the letter dated 5th July, 1988 issued by the Registrar Trade Unions that there was a change in the office-bearers of the Union (on the basis of the elections field on 2-7-1988). A request was made for adjournment on behalf of the petitioners in the petition but the request was turned down and the petition was dismissed as infructuous by order dated 26-9-1988.
4. It is contended by Mr. Shaikh Haider, learned counsel for the petitioners that in the elections held on 2-7-1988, 1874 persons who were included in the list supplied by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were in fact strangers and not members of respondent No, 4 Union and as such could not take part in the elections. As observed earlier, this is based on the contention that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 had been held to be non-members and strangers by the Registrar and as such the list supplied by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 of the aforesaid 1874 persons should not have been accepted and acceptance of that list and permitting such persons mentioned in the list to take part in the elections was an illegality and as a consequence the elections held on 2-7-1988 were void. We find no merit in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners. This Court in Constitutional Petition S- 39/88 had directed the Registrar Trade Unions to finalise the list of voters of the respondent No, 4.
Union and then hold elections of its office-bearers. On the basis of the material produced before him by the parties, the Registrar had finalised the list. As noticed earlier, the Registrar Trade Unions as per his report dated 25-6-1988 had relied upon copies of subscription receipts of previous years produced before him showing that the persons to whom such receipts had issued had been making subscription to the Union and on such basis those persons were included in the list of voters. The following observation of the learned Single Judge dated 30-6-1988 passed in Constitutional Petition No, S39/88 is pertinent and is reproduced here:-- "The main ground of attack of Mr. Shaikh Haider, learned counsel for the petitioners, is that, according to an order passed by the respondent No, 5 (Registrar Trade Unions) the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 had been held to be non-members and consequently they have no locus standi 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 provisions. 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 Ahmed Again, 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."
' In our view, the aforesaid observations made in the order dated 30-6-1988 completely meet the contentions raised before us. Just because the list of 1874 voters had been supplied by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 did not make such list incapable of being accepted. The Registrar Trade Union had to verify whether the persons who had to cast their votes to the elections were members of the Union or not. This function had been discharged by the Registrar Trade Unions as is evident from his report dated 25-6-1988. The Registrar Trade Unions had not accepted the said list for the reason that it had been supplied by respondents Nos. 1 and 2. He has given reasons in his report dated 25-6-1988 as to why the said list of members was being accepted. He has referred to the receipts of subscription for the previous years. He had also mentioned that after 1983, the petitioners had stopped issuing subscription receipts to the members. On the basis of evidence produced before him, the Registrar Trade Union had accepted the list though the same was submitted by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
5. There is another aspect of the matter and that is that the order dated 30-6-1988 passed by the learned Single Judge in Constitutional Petition No,S-39/88 had not been challenged by the petitioners. The said order, therefore, attained finality. In the present Constitutional petition, what the petitioners in fact want is that the order dated 30-6-1988 passed by the learned Single Judge in Petition S-39/1988 be ignored and it be declared that the list of voters submitted by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and accepted by the Registrar, Trade Unions was illegal. In our view, the petitioners cannot in this fashion indirectly challenge the order dated 30-6-1988 passed in Petition No, S-39/88.
' We find that the Labour Appellate Tribunal has based its decision dated 7-11-1989, inter alia, on the order dated 30-6-1988 passed by the learned Single Judge in Constitutional Petition No, S-39/88.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in this petition, which is dismissed but with no order as to costs.
7. Mr. Salahuddin Khan Gandapur, Advocate for respondents Nos. 2 and 4, informs that fresh elections of the respondent No, 4 Union are now scheduled to be held on 25-1-1991 and in Application No, DAR-358/89 the learned Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal has passed an order dated 13-12-1990 that both the parties agree to hold general body meeting for fresh election on 25- 1-1991 and that looking to the strained relations between the parties it was advisable that the elections be held under the supervision of the Registrar Trade Unions who may also draw the election programme. Learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 states that his clients had agreed to the holding of elections on 25-1-1991 under the supervision of the Registrar Trade Unions.