JUDGMENT This is an appeal against the award dated 7-7-1975 of Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore dismissing the petition under section 32(l-A) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
2. The Employees' Union, Lahore Chemical and Pharmaceutical Works Ltd., appellant, raised an industrial dispute by way of a petition under section 32(1-A) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, against Messrs Lahore Chemical and Pharmaceutical Works Ltd., respondent, seeking award ia respect of the demands listed in the demand notice Exh. P. 1/1.
3. The respondent not only resisted the petition on merits but also raised some preliminary objections including the following:-- (1)That the present petition has been filed by a person not competent to file. (2)That before raising any demand and serving any strike-notice, the Union had to get prior approval of the Executive Body as required in the Constitution of the Union itself. No such approval having been obtained there existed no valid and legal industrial dispute.
4. The learned Labour Court overruled the first objection but upheld the second objection and dismissed the petition.
5. Aggrieved by the above award the appellant has preferred this appeal. The respondent also challenged the decision of the Labour Court on preliminary objection No. 1 by way of cross-objection.
6. This appeal is admittedly time barred because after computing 4 days in which the copy of the award was supplied, this appeal should have been filed on 10-8-1975, wheieas it was filed on 22-8-1975. Alongwith the memorandum of appeal an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for the condonation of delay in filing the appeal was submitted. In that application it was alleged that the Secretary, Mr. Tariq Masood, who was competent to file the appeal, was ill from 5-8-1975 to 22-8-1975 and that was why there was a delay in filing the appeal. The application was supported by the Medical Certificate dated 21-8- 1975 issued by Dr. Ghulam Rasool, M. B. B. S., D. C. P., R. M. P. In view of the above certificate I condone the delay in filing the appeal. ^ 7. Preliminary objection No. 2 --The appellant examined Mr. Abdul Aziz, Senior Clerk of the office of the Registrar, Trade Unions and Mr. Abdul Hamid, Joint Secretary of the Union. Mr. Tariq Masood, who claimed to be the General Secretary of the Union and through whom the petition was filed before the Labour Court did not appear. Mr. Abdul Aziz produced Exh. P.
5 copy of Constitution of the appellant-Union. According to Article I6 of the said Constitution it was incumbent upon the General Secretary to get approval of the Exectutive Body in respect of demands before serving the strike notice. According to Article 22(a) of the Constitution strike notice could be given under the signatures of the General Secretary for which the approval of the Executive Body in respect of demand was essential. According to Article 29 of the Constitution 4 days notice was necessary for a General Meeting. Mr. Abdul Hamid, Joint Secretary of the Union, stated that the demands which had been listed in the demand notice were approved in the meeting of the General Body. In cross-examination he, however, admitted that no proceedings were recorded for such approval in the minutes book, which was produced before the Labour Court.
8. The respondent relied on the statement made by Mr. Tariq Masood, General Secretary of the Union, before Labour Court No. 1, Lahore on 4-6-1974, in another case under section 34 read with section 45 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, between the same parties. There he had made the following statement:-- . - "I have brought the proceedings register of the Union for the period from 10-1-1974 upto date. This register in Exh. PW1/1. .... ........ All proceedings of the Union whether relating to the general meeting, or emergent meeting or those of the executive committee are recorded in this register. According to the contents of this register, no approval of the executive committee of the General Body was obtained. Again said that there is no entry of proceedings in the register about the approval of the executive committee or general body for serving the demand notice or the strike notice." This statement belies the statement of Mr. Abdul Hamid, Joint Secretary of the Union. Thus it is clear that there has been a clear violation of Articles I6 and 22(a) of the Constitution of the appellant Union. The learned counsel for the appellant however, argued that passing of a special resolution authorising the General Secretary to issue demand notice and strike notice was not necessary as long as the General Secretary had been validly elected as such.
In support of his contention he relied on the judgments of the Industrial Court, West Pakistan in the cases, Labour Union v. E/ecttical and Mechanical Workshop, WAP DA, Lahore (1) West Pakistan Spencers Employees' Union (Regd.) v. Spencers and Company (Pak ) Ltd. Karachi (2). I have gone through the above judgments and find that I am unable to agree ' (1) 1966 PLC 317 (2) 1967 P L Q 654 with the views expressed therein, because it was the Constitution of the Union which had given birth to the Union and, therefore, the powers and functions of the affairs of the Union have to be subjected to the Constitution and noti be isolated from it. In other words the Union was bound by the edicts of its fl own Constitution. I am fortified in this view by the judgments of the Industriall Court, in the case Kokhar Glass Works, Karachi v. Khokkar Glass Works Mazdoor Union (1) and Messrs A. I. Silk Mills Ltd., Karachi v. Mohammad AH (2). Even Sind & Baluchistan High Court in the case Sind Industrial Trading Estates Ltd. Employ ess' Union, Karachi v. The Registrar, Trade Unions, Government of Sind and 2 others (3) held that where the Constitution of the Union provided no authority to the General Secretary to decide the question of participation in the poll to determine Collective Bargaining Agent, such decision could have been taken only by the Executive Body of the Union.
9. Thus it is clear that the Union is bound by its own Constitution and since in the present case the General Secretary had violated Articles I6 and 22(a) of the Constitution of the Union, the industrial dispute was not raised in the prescribed manner as required under section 43 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
10. In view of the above it will not be necessary to record my findings on the cross-objection.
11. In the result I find no merit in this appeal, which is, hereby dismissed. (1) 1970 PLC 659 (2) 1970 PLC 662 (3) 1973 PLC 88