The petitioners and respondents 2 to 8 are members of Refinery Employees' Union (Regd.). Attock Oil Company Limited, Refinery Morgah, Rawalpindi (hereinafter called the Union). Their present litigation finds its origin in the order dated 5th February, 1975, of the Punjab Labour Court No. 2, respondent No. 1, wherein the following observations were made: - "For the foregoing discussion I dismiss the petition with a direction to the Registrar, Trade Unions to look into the vires of this Union as well as its constitution, so as to make the executive of this Union and its constitution according to the new rules before new elections are held. If the constitution is inconsistent with the newly framed rules then a complaint to get a direction for deregistration of this Union can be made by the Registrar."
The directions as given above may be summarized as under: -
(i) to look into the vires of the Trade Union and its constitution to bring it in accord with the new rules before its next elections;
(ii) if the constitution is inconsistent with the new rules, then a complaint for deregistration be made.
2. In pursuance to these directions the Registrar, Trade Unions, on 19th March 1975, wrote to the General Secretary of the Union to propose amendments in the Constitution in accordance with the new rules. It appears that the constitution was duly revised and adopted by the Union in its mating held on 25th March 1975. It was also approved by the Registrar on, 9th April, 1975 (Annexure `C'). A request of the Union through its General Secretary to hold a Jalsa-i-Aam on 23rd April, 1975, was also allowed by the District Magistrate as is clear from Annexure `D' to this petition. The elections were also held on 23rd April 1975, in the presence of a representative of the Registrar, Trade Unions, as is stated in pare. 6 of the writ petition and admitted in the written statement filed by the respon- -dents 2 to 8. Approval of the Registrar, Trade Unions, to the elections was also conveyed to the Union on 20th May, 1975 (Annexure 'E'). Respondents 2 to 7 and others are said to have convened a separate meeting to 'counter this illegality'. They sent notices and amended the constitution in the general body meeting, held on 7th April, 1975. The amended constitution and the change of officers was also sent to the Registrar, who refused to register the same.
3. Feeling aggrieved, respondents 2 to 7, holding themselves out to be the validly elected office- bearers of the Union, filed an appeal, impleading in addition to the Registrar, Riaz Hussain Shah, petitioner No. 1, and Fayyaz Hussain Nizami, petitioner No. 2, as respondents with the following prayer: - "That the appellants which are members of the Trade Union in question pray for the deregistration of illegally registered constitution presented by respondents Nos. 2 and 3 for the registration of the properly amended constitution presented by the appellant."
In effect the prayer was that the Registrar should deregister the constitution filed by petitioners and the one filed by the respondents be registered instead. In another appeal filed by the same set of persons (t. e. respondents 2 to 7) against the petitioners and one Muhammad Azam Qureshi, it was prayed that the office-bearers as mentioned in Scheme 'G' attached to the appeal be directed to be recognised by the Registrar as officers of the Union after declar--ing the petitioners as illegally elected officers. In their written reply the present petitioners raised number of preliminary objections including incompetence of appeals. The two appeals were taken up by the respondent No. 1, on 15th July, 1975, who without considering the legal objections raised in the written reply disposed of the same by the impugned order with the following observations: - ------I, therefore, direct the Registrar to call a general meeting of the Attock Oil Company Refinery Employees' Union, which is C.B.A. in the first place to amend the constitution. Defects in the constitu--tion of the respondents which have been pointed out by me may be removed and then both the constitutions prepared by the appellants as well as by the respondents should be put to the members and constitution which is adapted by the majority of the Union should be registered and approved. After that a Schedule for election should be prepared and elections held as is done in referendum cases under the direct control of the Registrar or an officer named by the Registrar.
Change of office-bearers and approval of the constitution is decided to be deregistered and disapproved.--- The petitioners now challenge that order through the present writ petition.
4. The case of the respondents before the Labour Court was that the petitioners without notice and without calling a general body meeting amended the constitution in a meeting of the delegates.
Similar allegations were raised about the elections. None of the objections were, however, substantiated by any documentary evidence and it appears that respondent No. I did not attach any importance to them. The Labour Court then called for the record of the Union and found the following discrepancies:--
(a) The number of persons present at the general body meeting was not given in the minutes though the rule 5 did require the same.
(b) Minutes of the previous meeting were not confirmed though it should have been done under rule 6.
The record was also found deficient in information as to how notices of the meeting were given and what agenda was there for amendment of the constitution and the elections. The amended constitution was also found to be inconsistent with rule 4 as it provided annual as against monthly subscriptions. Further, no provision was found to exist for fine as required under section 7 (e) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. About elections it was held that because of two rival groups in the Union, which was also C.R.A., their elections were always disputed and it would be proper and fair that the Registrar should hold elections of the Union.
5. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that both the appeals filed by the respondents were not competent as the appellants were neither the officers nor members of the Union. Reference in this connection was made to section 8 (7) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, which reads as follows: - 8.-(7) In case there is a dispute in relation to the change of officers of a Trade Union, or any Trade Union as aggrieved by the refusal of the Registrar under subsection (5) any officer or member of the Trade Union may appeal to the Labour Court, who shall within seven days of receipt of the application or appeal, as the case way be, pass an order either directing the Registrar to register the change or alteration in the constitution or in the officers of the Trade Union or may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, direct the Registrar to hold fresh elections of the Union under his supervision."
6. The respondents had filed two appeals and sought for two different reliefs. One appeal was directed against the change of the officers in the Trade Union while in the other it was prayed that the illegally registered constitution submitted by the petitioners be deregistered and the one submitted by respondents 2 to 8 be registered. It may be recalled that the exercise, for the amendment of the constitution had been undertaken at the directions of the Labour Court, as contained in its order dated 5th February 1975. The Registrar had called upon the General Secretary to comply with the directions. The General Secretary, according to him, convened a general body meeting and got the changes in the constitution approved by it. The amendments4ere then registered by the Registrar. The other amend--ments submitted for registration by the respondents, were neither sent at the instance of the Union nor were those authorised by it. Under section 5 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance only a Trade Union can file application for such a purpose before the Registrar. This right of the Union has not been taken away in any other provision.
7. The right of appeal against rejection of application for registration under section 8 (3) is specifically given to the Trade Union. Under section 8 (7) the right of appeal is given to any officer or member of a Trade Union but only in the following situations:
(a) there is a dispute in relation to change of officers;
(b) or any Trade Union is aggrieved by the refusal of the Registrar to register a change or alteration in the constitution.
Under section 8 (4) any change or alteration in the constitution or a change in the officers of the Trade Union is to be notified by registered post by the Trade Union to the Registrar. A right of appeal would, therefore, accrue only if the Trade Union is aggrieved of the refusal of the Registrar to register a change or alteration in the constitution notified for registration by it. Admittedly in this case, respondents were not the Trade Union and, therefore, no right of the appeal arose so far as the refusal to register their amendments was concerned. That appeal was therefore, not competent and ought to have been dismissed. Even the learned counsel for respondents 2 to 7 did not contest this aspect of the case. His case was, that the respondents wanted the Labour Court, to consider their amendments and disapprove those of the petitioners, being in violation of the rules, as a matter incidental to the elections, in the other appeal which was about the change of officers of the Union.
8. Amittedly, there has been a change of the officers of the Union because of the elections.
Therefore, any officer or any member of the Trade Union could file an appeal under section 8 (7) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. The status of respondents 2 to 8 as members of the Union has been admitted in para. 1 of the writ petition. The other appeal on their behalf was, therefore, competent.
9. It was, next submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they had acted in accordance with the directions of the Labour Court as given in the; order dated 5th February 1975, and the Registrar, to amend the constitution. The amendments also met with the approval of the Registrar and the 6tections were held in the presence of his representative. The Registrar was obviously satisfied with the conduct of elections as he did approve the same and registered the change notified to him under section 8 (4). The Labour Court thus had no justification or lawful authority in that situation to annul the elections. The learned counsel for the contesting respondents submitted that as the result of the elections was affected by the illegally amended con--stitution, the Labour Court was right in ordering fresh elections. He further submitted that the Union could not amend its constitution through delegates. According to him there should have been a meeting of the general body of members for the purpose to produce valid amendments.
10. The plea of the respondents would be correct if the conduct of the elections violated the constitution or the rules. However, the Labour Court did not have any material before it to accept the allegations and it declared so specifically. Even the respondents have admitted in parry. 6 of their written statement that the elections were held in the presence of a representative of the Registrar. Therefore, if there was any illegality or violation of the constitution, the Registrar would not have registered the changes. Further, if there was any illegality in the procedure adopted for amending the constitution, it would have been brought to the notice of the Registrar or his representative. The fact that the Registrar registered the amendments and also registered the changes prima facie proved that the procedure adopted was legal and the constitution valid. The Labour Court too did not upset the elections on that ground. It was only influenced by the fact that the minutes book did not contain the number of the members present and the agenda of the meeting had not been given there. As the elections were held in the presence of a representative of the Registrar, the Labour Court ought to have either presumed that the same were valid or it should have examined the representative who was present at the elections to verify the position. Having held that there was no evidence to support the allegations raised by the respondents the Labour Court ought to have looked for other material justifying interference. The respondents did not raise any objection about the deficiencies in the record to their appeal. Rule 4 (5) (c) of the Ordinance provides that approximate number of the workers who attended the general body meeting shall be noted. Rule provides for penalty if there is a breach of rules. Thus though penalty could be imposed for the simple breach of rules yet the elections could be set aside only there was some evidence of malpractices, illegalities or corrupt practices affecting materially the result of elections as is the well-established rule in such cases. The scheme of the Act shows that the Legislature never intended any interference of the Labour Court on arbitrary, fanciful or flimsy grounds. In any case, it cannot be a valid ground to interfere if seven persons object to an election of a Union with over 1500' members.
11. As regards the objection to the constitution being repugnant to certain rules, the only authority that has to take note of it, is the Registrar who can lodge a complaint to the Labour Court under section 10. There is no provision for the Labour Court to take up the issue suo motu. There is also nothing in the law or the rules empowering the Labour Court to direct the Registrar to lodge a complaint before it. On the other hand, the Labour Court, in a valid appeal before it can either direct the Registrar to register the change or alteration in the constitution or in the officers or for reasons to be recorded in writing direct the Registrar to hold fresh elections under his supervision.
In a complaint under: section 10 the Labour Court can direct the Registrar to cancel registration but has no power to direct the Registrar to hold a meeting of the general body for the purpose of amending the constitution to bring it in accord with the rules or the provisions of law. It will, therefore, be left to the workers as to whether they would form another Union or join the existing ones. if any. The impugned order of the Labour Court was the without jurisdiction.
12. It was next submitted by the learned counsel that the respondents who were frustrated in not being elected as officers of the Union, could form their own Union but could not hold themselves out as the self-styled office-bearers of the Union. The objection appears to be quite sound. It is nowhere stated that respondents 2 to 7 participated in the elections held on 23rd April 1975. They rather denied if any general body meeting was held at all. On the other hand, Lai Hussain respondent No. 5, called a meeting of the Union by public announcement and elected the office-- bearers who were shown in the Scheme 'G' attached to the appeal. Lai Hussain was not an officer of the Union and had no authority to do so under the constitution. The meeting held by Lai Hussain was thus unconstitutional and the proceedings taken there were void and ineffective. The other meeting held by the petitioners being valid and the elections having been conducted in the presence of a representative of the Registrar, Trade Union, they could not have been set aside after it was found that the objections raised by respondents 2 to 7 were not supported by any evidence.
In view of the above discussion I have no doubt in my mind that the order of the Labour Court is without lawful authority and of no legal effect and I declare it so. The parties, are however, left to bear their own costs.