' Through this Revision Petition under section 38(3-a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (to be called the Ordinance hereinafter), the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order of the Registrar (respondent No,1), dated 26-3 1998, and the order of the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court (respondent No,3), Haripur, dated 29-7-1998, to be without lawful authority and jurisdiction.
2. Brief facts as asserted in the petition are that the petitioner is a elected Vice-President and Member of Ittefaq Workers Union Terbella Cotton Mills Ltd. The President and the Secretary General of the Union (respondent No,2) in order to avoid no confidence movement against themselves, amended clause 15({{URDU TEXT}}) of the constitution of the Union and got it approval from the Registrar Trade Unions, Hazara Division, Haripur on 26-3-1998.
' The petitioner being aggrieved of the aforesaid order/approval of the respondent No,1, approached the Labour Court, Haripur through an appeal under section 8(7) of the Ordinance with the prayer to set aside the order, dated 26-3-1998 of respondent No, 1 . Respondent No,1 filed his comments to the appeal.
' The learned Labour Court dismissed the appeal of the petitioner vide order, dated 29-7-1998 which is impugned herein.
3. Both the learned counsel for the parties were heard in support of their respective viewpoints and record was also perused in the light of their submissions.
4. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there were serious allegations of misappropriation/embezzlement of Union funds against the President and the General Secretary of the Union, on the basis of which they could be removed by passing a no confidence resolution against them. The amendment in clause 15(S) of the constitution of the workers Union was made with mala fide intentions to provide them protection and in that garb to shun movement of no confidence against them. He further submitted that Executive Committee was empowered to amend the constitution or it could delegate its powers to the President and the General Secretary with approval of 3/4th majority in the General Council. The proposed amendment had to be tabled before the general body and it could only be passed with 3/4th majority thereof, but the same was not done and as such they have committed flagrant violation of the provisions of the Constitution.
' It was next argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the consent of the office-bearers was obtained fraudulently by getting their signatures on the blank papers and the same were later on misused for ulterior motives for the said amendment. Therefore, they have not only violated the constitution but also shaken the confidence of the workers. He further argued that the aforesaid amendment was discriminatory in nature as President and General Secretary were differently treated and different standard was fixed for them than that of the other office-bearers, hence, the amendment was against all good norms.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No,2 submitted that the Revision Petition is not maintainable as there is no provisions in law for it. But he could not substantiate his objection by any law or case law.
6. Section 38(3-a) of the Ordinance empowers this Tribunal to call for the record of any case in which the Labour Court within its jurisdiction has passed an order to see whether the order passed was correct, proper and lawful. Hence the Revision Petition is maintainable if, thus, the objection is overruled.
7. Adverting to the merit of the case it would be appropriate to reproduce herein the original extract of clause 15({{URDU TEXT}}) and amended Article for facility of reference:-- EXTRACT OF CLAUSE 15 ({{URDU TEXT}} "In case of no confidence against the President of the Union, the resolution for no confidence shall be given to the General Secretary of the Union and if no confidence is against both of the President and General Secretary, the meeting of the General Body shall be requisitioned under the signatures of halt of the office-bearers of the Union and the resolution of no confidence be placed before the General body of the Union, and the same will be approved by 3/4th majority of the members."
AMENDED ARTICLE "That in case of no confidence against the President and General Secretary, approval of 9 out of 10 office-bearers is to be required and against the other office-bearers 3/4th majority of the General Body would be required".
' It is manifest from the perusal of above clauses that the original extract of, the 15( ) was based on equality as equal protection/rights were given to the office-bearers to face the movement of no confidence and the resolution of no confidence was required to be placed before the General Body of the Union which required 3/4th majority for its passing whereas in the amended provision President and General Secretary have been distinctly treated than that of the other office-bearers.
It appears that the amendment was so designed so as to protect only the President and General Secretary of the Union and to dissuade the tabling of no confidence against them. Therefore, the aforesaid amendment being discriminatory in nature is against fundamental principles of justice and equity and deserves to be struck down.
8. It was obligatory upon respondent No,1 to have held an independent enquiry to verify as to whether the Executive Committee with the approval of 3/4th majority of the total members of the Union had delegated the powers to respondent No,2 for the proposed amendment, but he failed to perform his duties in a manner provided under the law and he without proper scrutiny, accorded the approval of the amendment on the same day on which it was presented to him without application of independent judicial mind.
' Consequently, the revision is accepted and the impugned order of learned Labour Court, dated 29-7-1998, and the approval, dated 26-3-1998 of the respondent No,1 are set aside and the original extract of clause l5({{URDU TEXT}}) is restored, with no order as to costs.