Employees' Union, Lahore Chemical and Pharmacutical Works Ltd., here--in after referred to as the petitioner-Union has brought the under-considera--tion petition under section 32 (I-A) against Messrs Lahore Chemical and Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. i.e. The respondent seeking award in respect of the demands listed in notice of demand Exh. PI/l.
2. The respondent resisted the petition of the petitioner-Union and raised the following preliminary objections-
(1) That the present petition has been filed by person not competent to file.
(2) That the election of the office-bearers of the petitioner-Union being illegal, .The present petition is not competent by any office-bearer of the said Union.
(3) That the demand as well as strike notice were not in accordance with the law and provisions of constitution of the Union, therefore no valid industrial dispute legally exists.
(4) That the conciliation proceedings failed on 16th May 1974, and no petition under section 32 (I- A), I. R. O. Has been filed in the, the industrial dispute if any automatically abated.
(5) That the petitioner-Union is not legally constituted Collective .Bargaining Agent and therefore not competent to raise any industrial dispute.
(6) That the demands as originally raised in the notice under section 26(1) of the I. R. O. Were illegal and unauthorized by adding to more demands in the notice given under section 26(3) read with section 28, I. R. O. Both the notices as such are illegal, void and inoperative.
(7) That before raising any demand and serving any strike notice the Union has to get the prior approval of the Executive Body as required under the constitution of the Union itself. No such approval having been taken there exists no valid and legal industrial dispute.
(8) That the failure certificate issued by the Conciliator is illegal and can not be made the basis of an industrial dispute.
3. Evidence of the parties has been recorded and arguments have been heard in respect of the aforesaid preliminary objections and the same are sought to be &posed of by this order.
4. Preliminary objections Nos.1 and 7.----I take up these objections together because both these objections pertain to the fact that if the petition under section 32 (I-A) of the I. R. O. Has been filed by person competent to file and that if this dispute has been raised in accordance with the constitu--tion of the petitioner-Union.
5. The under-consideration petition has been filed by the petitioner-Union through Tariq Masood who claimed himself to be the General Secretary. It is noteworthy that Mr. Tariq Masood himself has not cared to come into the witness box to prove his competency for raising the Industrial dispute.
The petitioner-Union however has, examined Abdul Aziz, Senior Clerk of the office, of the Registrar, Trade Union and Mr. Abdul Hameed, Joint Secretary of the petitioner-Union in connection with these objections. Mr. Abdul Aziz. Brought the letter dated 28th February 1974 from the petitioner- Union addressed to the Registrar, Trade Unions, Lahore Region, Lahore. According to the contents of this letter an emergent meeting of the members of the Union took place on 26th February 1974 under the president-ship of Mr. Abdul Rehman President of the petitioner-Union and it was contained in the letter that in the aforesaid meeting the resignation of Muhammad Bashir the former General Secretary was accepted and in his place Tariq Masood was elected as General Secretary of the Union. Witness stated that according to the intimation received in his office in the same meeting dated 26th February 1974 Muhammad Bashir's resignation was accepted and Tariq Masud was elected as General Secretary. This meeting was an emergent meeting of the Executive Body of the Union and not of General Body The Registrar was not informed as to who participated in this meeting. The witness also disclosed that according to Article 22 of the Constitution of the Union the strike notice can be given under the signature of General Secretary for which approval of the Executive Body in respect of demands is essential and according to Article--cle 9 of the Constitution four days' notice was necessary far a general meeting. This official further disclosed that according to Article 16 of the Constitution it was incumbent upon the General Secretary to get the approval of the Executive Body in respect of demands before serving the strike notice. Exh. P. 5 has been produced as the copy of the constitution of the petitioner Union, the contents of Exh. P. 5 support the testimony of Mr. Abdul Aziz. Abdul Hamid Joint Secretary of the Union stated that Mr. Tariq Masood was elected as General Secretary of the Union on 28th February 1974 by the Executive Body in accordance with the Constitution. Mr. Abdul Hamid claimed that the demands which have been listed in the demand notice were got approved in the meeting of the General Body. He however admitted in the cross---examination that no proceedings were recorded about such approval in the minutes book. He could not tell venue of the meeting in which such approval was obtained.
6. The respondent has placed reliance on the statement of Mr. Tariq Masood, General Secretary of the petitioner. Union which he made on 4th June 1974 in another case between the petitioner-Union and the respondent which was filed under section 34 read with section 45 of I. R. O. In that statement Tariq Masood had admitted that according to contents of the proceedings register in which all proceedings of the Union whether relating to the General Meeting or Emergent Meeting or those of Executive Committee were recorded no approval of the Executive Committee or the General Body was obtained for serving the demand notice or strike notice on the Management. Mr. Tariq Masood has further stated that he was elected as General Secretary in the meeting held on 28th February 1974 in which the previous General Secretary had tendered his resignation. It is provided in Article 15(d) of the constitution of the petitioner-Union that after the general elections if any vacancy occurs for any Office of the Union the same could be filled by a majority decision taken in a meeting of the Executive Body and persons so elected would hold office for the remaining period for which general elections of the office-bearer was held.
7. After the careful consideration and close analysis of the evidence of the parties as described above, we conclude that election of Tariq Masood as General Secretary of the petitioner-Union has taken place in accordance with Article 15 (d) of the constitution of the petitioner-Union but no approval of the Executive Body of the Union was accorded for serving demand notice on the Management as is required under Article 22(a) of the Constitution. In Khokhar Glass Works, Karachi v. Khokar Glass Works Mazdoor Union (1970 PLC 659) it was held that a Trade Union was bound by the verdict of its own constitution and a strike resorted to by the Union without complying with and in violation of the provisions of Unions Constitution was illegal. In Ms. P.
1. Silk Mills, Karachi v.
Muhammad Ali (1970 PLC 662) it was held that, where Constitution of Workers Union authorized Secretary of the Union to make correspondence strike notice signed by the President of the Union was held not to be in the prescribed manner in terms of section 46 (1) (6) and hence illegal. In Sind Industrial Trading Estate Limited Employees' Union. Karachi v. The Registrar, Trade Unions, Sind (1973 PLC 88) the Sind & Baluchistan High Court held that where the Union Constitution provided no authority to the General Secretary to decide the question of participation in the poll to determine C.
B. A. Such decision could have been taken only by the Executive Body of the Union.
8. It would follow from the above that the Union is bound by its Constitution and in the circumstances of the present case since it was a must according to the Constitution of the petitioner-Union that a previous approval's of the Executive Body is obtained before serving of demand notice but no such previous approval was actually obtained, therefore the industrial dispute has not been raised in the prescribed manner in the terms of section 43 of/ the I.R.O. The present application therefore deserves dismissal on this, short ground.
9. In view of what has been said above I need not record my findings on the other preliminary objections and dismiss the petition on the ground that the under-consideration industrial dispute has not been raised in the prescribed manner.