RAJA MAHAMMAD KHURSHID, J.- This intra Court Appeal is filed under Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 to call in question judgment dated 13.7.1998 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Chamber, whereby, the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed in limine.
2. The impugned order is challenged on the ground that the appellant was elected as Chairman of Hydro Electric Union Sub-Division, Shah Jewna, District Faisalabad in the year 1997 for to years, whereas this period had been curtailed unilaterally by the respondents by announcing election schedule, whereby, it was directed that the election of the Union will he held on 16.7.1998. It was contended that such unilateral action could not be taken by the respondents to deprive the appellant of his right to hold the elected office as Chairman for to years; that the respondents had no jurisdiction to hold fresh election at the Divisional level for all the three Sub-Divisions because no confidence motion was moved for only one Sub Division i.e. Shah Jewna that the impugned order was alleged violative of rules of the Union and based on mala fide.
3. We have considered the above submissions and point out that the appellant/petitioner had tailed to bring on record the Constitution of the Union or the election rules under which the alleged representative body i.e. Central Labour Union or its subsidiary Unions have to be elected or to function. As such, in the absence of these rules or the Constitution, it cannot be successfully urged that the impugned action by the respondents was in excess of their jurisdiction or was mala fide and illegal. In such a situation, we have no criterion before us to adjudge the order passed by the respondents, whereby, the fresh elections were directed to be held. Even otherwise, it has rightly been observed by the learned Single Judge that the election is an internal matter of the Union, in this regard, we may also add that the respondents represent the Central Labour Union, whereas, the appellant claims' to be the Chairman of its Subsidiary Union. In such a situation, and in the absence of placing on record the rules or the Constitution of the Union, it will not be possible to interfere in the internal management or working of the Union in the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
4. In the light of what has been said above, the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is eminently just and right which calls for no interference in this appeal which is dismissed in limine with the observation that the appellant if so advised, may avail the remedy in the Civil Court for the acclaimed right to hold office.
C.M. No. 1/98.
C.M. No. 2/98.
These petitions also stand disposed of with the disposal of the main case.