' The dispute in this Constitutional petition pertains to membership of Towel Manufacturers'
Association of Pakistan, respondent No,2 and its election to the Northern Circle Committee, shown to be held on 23-4-1995 and Central Executive Committee held on 30-5-1995. Serious allegations of illegalities and irregularities have been made. It is averred that certain eligible members have been illegally expelled from the voters' list and thus the whole election has been rendered as sham and void. Earlier Writ Petition No, 14067 of 1995 was filed in this Court for a direction that the Director Trade Organizations, respondent No,1 be compelled to decide representation expeditiously because the tenure of the office-bearers was expiring. In the report and parawise comments submitted the position taken was that the representation of the petitioners having been received beyond 30 days from the announcement of the result of election, the respondent was not proceeding to deal with the same. The plea was not accepted and on 30-11-1995 it was directed that the representation dated 3-6-1995 has to be proceeded with and decided in accordance with law after hearing the affected persons. The period of 15 days was fixed for disposal of the representation by respondent No,1.
2. Puruant to the judgment in the above writ petition, the matter was again considered by the Director Trade Organizations, respondent No,1 who again held the representation to be barred by time. In other words, the respondent No,1 refused to probe and investigate the allegations of expulsion from membership, election being sham and a mere paper work on the ground that the petitioners did not agitate the grievance within 30 days from the ostensible election which was claimed to be held on 23-4-1995. Once against aggrieved, the petitioners have filed this Constitutional petition seeking various declarations regarding the wrongful expulsion of membership, removal of the names from the voters' list and other irregularities or illegalities and for further declaration that elections were also void.
3. In support of this petition, learned counsel has vehemently argued that respondents have committed a grave irregularity in holding the elections and for this purpose has stated that the claim that elections were held on 23-4-1995 is belied by the document Annexure-J according to which the meeting scheduled for 12-3-1995 had been cancelled. He has also tried to show that 28 members were wrongly expelled and deprived of the right of voting. It is also urged that in any case the elections to the Central Executive Committee were held on 30-5-1995 and representation against the same dated 3-6-1995 admittedly received in the office of respondent No,1 on 6-6-1995 was within time. The refusal of the Director, Trade Organizations, respondent No,1 to examine the validity of the elections of the Central Committee is a case of failure of jurisdiction on wrong assumption that the representation was beyond 30 days.
3-A. Both the learned Deputy Attorney-General as well as the counsel for respondent No,6 have resisted this petition on the ground inter alia of pendency of suit and non-disclosure of the factum of filing of the suit in the petition.
4. The relief in this Constitutional petition cannot be denied to the petitioners on the ground of pendency of the suit. It has not been shown that at the time of filing of this petition any suit on behalf of petitioner No,1 was pending. All that has been established is that petitioner No,1 alongwith others did file a suit but, in so 6r as petitioner No,1 is concerned, the suit was dismissed/withdrawn on 30-14996, much before the filing of this petition. Even otherwise, I am not minded to give effect to this objection because under the Trade Organizations Ordinance, the Civil Courts do not have the jurisdiction and subject to exceptions, any pending suit is likely to meet its natural death in due course. Further, the examination of the validity of the impugned order cannot be denied in exercise of the Constitutional jurisdiction even if some suit was pending. It is only a matter of practice and not of law that this Court improper circumstances refuses to exercise jurisdiction where the suit on the same subject matter is also pending. For these reasons I repel this contention.
5. Non-disclosure of the factum of filing of suit/withdrawal or its pendency is again not fatal inasmuch as the Civil Court is not empowered to examine the dispute which falls to be determined by the Director Trade Organizations. In a case, I am not inclined to deny exercise of my jurisdiction on this ground as well since the suppression of facts is not material.
6. The impugned order of respondent No,1 dated 14-12-1995 once again suffers from serious illegality. Respondent No,1- has refused to exercise his jurisdiction to examine the alleged grave illegalities in the elections to respondent No,2 on the technical ground of limitation. A reference to Annexure Q, the representation made before respondent No,1 makes it clear that amongst other reliefs the petitioners also sought annulment of "so-called elections of C.E.C. Of T.M.A." It is admitted by all the parties that elections of C.E.C. Were held on 30-5-1995. How the representation dated 3- 6-1995 and admittedly received in the office of respondent No,1 on 6-6-1989, is beyond 30 days, has not been explained by learned respondent No,1 nor, in fact, this aspect of the case has at all been attended to by him. To this extent, therefore, the impugned order is patently illegal and without lawful authority.
7. It is also well-established principle that the limitation does not run against void order/action. The case of the petitioner before respondent No I was that the entire exercise relating to elections of T.M.A. Was riddled with irregularities and illegalities and wrongful expulsion of the entitled persons from the franchise. If the allegations are correct then the elections held on 23-4-1995 to the Nothern Circle Committee will have to be held as void, carrying no efficacy in law. This exercise has not been undertaken by the learned respondent No,1 on the assumption that elections were in fact held on 23-4-1995 and they were not void Prima facie, this assumption is not borne out from the facts and circumstances of the case. In view of the allegations levelled in the representation dated 3-6-1995, it was obligatory upon the Director, Trade Organizations to have inquired into the same in accordance with law and the principles of equity and fair play. He has clearly failed in his statutory duty in refusing inquiry and investigation on the simplisitic ground that the representation was barred by time.
8. There is another aspect of the matter. The representation is within time in so far as the challenge to the elections of Central Executive Committee is concerned. The validity of elections to the Central Executive Committee is inextricably linked with the validity of the earlier elections to Northern Circle Committee, shown to have been held on 23-4-1995. Perforce, therefore, the Director, Trade Organizations has to inquire into the validity of elections dated 23-4-1995. This has not been done on the illegal assumption of the representation being barred by time.
9. In view of the above findings, this Court need not itself examine the validity of the meeting of the Northern Circle Committee held on 12-3-1995, the expulsion of 28 members of the Northern Circle Committee and the validity of the meeting of the Central Executive Committee confirming the expulsion of 28 members and the subsequent elections held to elect Chairman. All these questions are left to be determined, by the Director, Trade Organizations, respondent No, 1 .
10. In view of what has been stated above, this petition is allowed and once again the impugned order dated 14-12-1995 passed by respondent No,1 is hereby declared to have been passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The representation of petitioner No,1 dated 3-6-1995 shall be deemed to be pending with respondent No,1 who will now proceed to decide the same in accordance with law and after giving opportunity to the parties to establish/deny the allegations levelled in the representation. Since the tenure of the office-bearers whose election is challenged is expiring, learned respondent No,1 is directed to decide the representation expeditiously but not later than one month from today. The parties have been directed to appear before respondent No,1 on 25-6-1996.