' This is application under section 8(7) of the I.R.O., 1969 filed by Muhammad Saleem Sanjrani, Member, Sui Southern Gas Officers Association, Hyderabad Sindh with prayer to direct the respondents to hold election for electing office bearers of the Association and to restrain them from functioning as office-bearers and from using the Association funds till the disposal of the main petition, and any other relief which this Bench of the Commission deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. Alongwith this application, application for stay supported by affidavit of petitioner has been filed for interim prohibitory orders.
3. The respondents filed legal objections on the maintainability of this application in the present form on the ground that section 8(7) of the I.R.O., 1969 relates to the dispute in relation to the change of officers of a trade union while in the present application prayer has been made to direct the respondents to hold, election of the office-bearers of the Association. It was therefore, prayed for dismissing the main application as well as stay application.
4, I have heard the arguments advanced by Mr. M.A.K. Azmati learned advocate for' the petitioner and Mr. Masood Noorani learned Advocate for respondent No,1, Association.
5. Mr. M.A.K. Azmati, learned advocate for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is member, Sui Southern Gas Officers Association which is respondent No,1 in the present case. He has further contended that last elections of the Association were held in the month of December, 1995 for a period of two years as provided in the Association's constitution and therefore, the elections are due to be held on the completion of the term of two years which were, however, not held and the office-bearers of the Association were illegally continuing as such and were also collecting and spending funds of the union illegally. Efforts made by the members to persuade the present set of office-bearers to hold elections and not to collect or use funds unauthorisedly having failed, the applicants have approached the Commission which has the jurisdiction to order the General Secretary of the Association to hold the fresh elections in order to avoid complication and till the elections are held the office-bearers be direced not to function as such.
6. Mr. Masood Noorani, learned advocate for respondent No,1, contended that this application is not maintainable having been filed under section 8(7) of the I.R.O., 1969 which pertains to the dispute in relation to change of office-bearers of a trade union and not to holding of elections by the office- bearers on the expiry of their terms. He further contended that even otherwise for the sake of arguments if it is presumed that his is the case of change of office-bearers the same should be filed before the Labour Court when the applicant is aggrieved by any order of the Registrar of Trade Unions. In the present case the applicant has not approached the Registrar of Trade Unions in respect of any complaint in relation to change of office bearers or even for holding of the fresh elections as therefore, he is not aggrieved by any order of Registrar of Trade Unions and as such he has no locus standi to come to this Bench of Commission. He has further contended that this application is also barred by limitation as the elections as alleged by the applicant were due in the month of December, 1997 but the applicant has filed this case after 10 months. No explanation has been given by the applicant for the delay in filing the instant application as such the case/application is liable to be rejected on this point also. He has further contended that the applicant has not come with clean hands hiding the facts that he had filed incidental application through one of the office-bearers namely Aftab Ahmed before this Bench of Commission which was referred to by the Benchto the Hon'ble learned Chairman for proper assignment/orders besides the applicant has also remained party to all the deeds and acts of the union. It was further contended that the proper forum for the redressal of the grievance was the Registrar Industrywise Trade Unions and not this Bench of Commission as such the application be dismissed. In support of his contention the learned Advocate for respondent No,1 has relied upon case of Masood Akhtar Butt v. Muhammad Rafique Awan and others reported in 1996 PLC 35, Haji Khan Bhatti v. NIRC and others reported in 1992 PLC 594, General Secretary, Sui Northern Professional Engineers Association v. Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited and others reported in 1993 PLC 168, Syed Mushtaque Hussain Shah v. Riaz Muhammad Hazarvi and another reported in PLD 1978 Karachi 612 and Zafar Muhammad, General Manager, TIP, Haripur and another v. Ghulam Asghar and 4 others reported in 1988 PLC 923.
7. I have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments and pleadings advanced by both the learned counsel for the parties and my findings are given below:--
8. The present application has been filed under section 8(7) of the I.R.O., 1969 which reads as under:-- "S.8(7). In case there is a dispute in relation to the change of officers of a trade union, or any trade union is aggrieved by the refusal of the Registrar under subsection (5) any officer or member of the trade union may apply or appeal to the Labour Court, who shall within seven days of receipt of the application or appeal, as the case may 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 frtsh elections of the union under his supervision.
9. From the simple reading of the above section, it is clear that under this section any member or office-bearer of a trade union may apply or appeal to the Labour Court, if there is a dispute in relation to the change of officers of a trade union or he is aggrieved by the refusal of the Registrar under subsection (5) of section 8 of the I.R.O., 1969.
10. It is pertinent to note that in the instant case, relief sought by the applicant is that directions be issued to the respondents to hold elections of office-bearers of the Association which were due to be held in December, 1997 that is after expiry of two years term as provided in the Constitution but which have not yet been held in spite of representations.
11. Admittedly the elections of the Association as provided in the constitution were due to be held in December, 1997 but these have not been held even after expiry of about eleven months. Thus, the present set of office-bearers are not only violating the Constitution of the union but are illegally continuing as office -bearers of the Association.
12. Thus there is neither dispute in relation to change of officers of the trade union or it is an appeal against the orders of the Registrar and therefore, I am of the considered view that this application in the present from is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed, alongwith application for stay. In fact the applicant should have approached the learned Registrar Industry-wise Trade Unions for present relief.