DECISION ' The circumstances in which this Revision Application has been filed, very succinctly stated, are as follows:
2. On the basis of the election held in the Union in July, 1990, the present applicants were elected office-bearers; the applicant No, 3 being the President. It appears that the affairs of the Union did not run very smoothly, and the applicants had tendered their resignation on or about the 22nd April, 1991. Their Offices were filled up by co-option as envisaged in Article 11 of the Constitution of the Union.
3. The information of this change was intimated to the Registrar, who issued a notice for the apperance of the parties. The statement of the applicant, No, 1 is stated to have been recorded on 28-5-1991 and the change in the names of the office-holders was accepted on 28-5-1991. This resulted in an appeal before the Labour Court in which the changes were challenged.
4. The record shows that by consent of the parties the Deputy Registrar by the name of Mr. Khursheed Hussain Bukhari was examined before the Labour Court who detailed circumstances in which the change came to occur.
5. The learned Presiding Officer dismissed the appeal being of the view that looking to the language of section 8, subsection (7) of I.R.O., it was incompetent. He sought support for the view taken by him from the case of KMC Sanitary & General Employees Union v. Khalid Hafeez and others 1991 PLC 593 in which reference had been made to the cases of Asmat Javaid v. Rafiq Ahmed 1979 PLC 96 and Shaikh Mazhar Hussain Shah v. Registrar of Trade Unions 1980 PLC 908.
6. It is, however, to be noted that this latter judgment referred to earlier was quashed by the Lahore High Court as reported in 1980 PLC 219. There is also a judgment to the same effect from the Sindh High Court which is reported in 1982 PLC 74 Shamsur Rehman and others v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court No, 1 and 19 others wherein the interpretation of section 8 subsection (7) of I.R.O. Was gone into full depth and detail. I agree with the view taken in the abovementioned two judgments of the High Court. A plain reading of subsection (7) of section 8 of the I.R.O. Makes out that the right of appeal would be available to an aggrieved party, both in the case of refusal. Of the change or alteration, or acceptance thereof on the part of the Registrar. A Leaving the power of the acceptance of the change in the sole hands of the Registrar could never be conducive to the healthy development of the trade union movement. And the framers of the law, have seen to it that his powers were fettered. The finding of the learned Presiding Officer, under the circumstances, is open to exception.
7. Admittedly the next elections are due in the last week of July, 1992; and when I had brought it to the notice of the parties that even if this appeal is allowed and matter is re-heard by the Presiding Officer, the next election would be due, before the entire round is completed and that all these efforts would be a mere essay in futility. Both the learned counsel thereupon agreed to face election and have an end of the dispute. The applicant No, 3 however did not agree to the suggestion - the General Secretary was stated to have been in the hospital as he was unwell.
8. The revisional powers are discretionary and it is not necessary that every order should be interfered with only because it is insupportable in law. As I said earlier the order passed by the learned Labour Court is erroneous but still I am of the opinion that in the circumstances of the matter any interference on my part would hardly be justified.
9. I will, therefore, dismiss the revision application.