' This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 seeks direction in the nature of mandamus that respondent No,2 i,e, RITU be directed to issue sanction/approval of the executive body of the petitioner-union so that it may start functioning for two years as per constitution of the union with the added prayer that respondents Nos.2 and 3 be restrained from taking any adverse steps/actions against the petitioners and its office-bearers.
2. The controversy between the parties was triggered by respondent No,3, who filed an application against the petitioner-union for the cancellation of its registration on the ground that the said union also included in its folds certain executive of the bank which could not be so included as per the constitution of the union. The application afore-noted came up for hearing before respondent No,1 when it was agreed by the petitioner-union that the executives would be excluded from the membership of the union and consequent thereupon the said executives were actually removed.
As two of them had also been elected to the post of General Secretary and Finance Secretary, therefore, the union in its meeting held on 24-5-1998 elected new General Secretary and Finance Secretary to fill the vacancies caused because of departure of the said executives which was duly notified to respondent No,2 for his approval. The said respondent No,2, however, remained silent as to the change in body with the result that the petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition (Writ Petition No,13036 of 1998), which was disposed of vide order, dated 30-6-1998 whereby it was ordained as follows:-- "There is much force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner for the respondent No,2 is bound under the law to dispose of the applications of the petitioner as contained in letter sent to him in the nature of intimation vide letter, dated 27-5-1998, 25-6-1998 and 26-6-1998. In these circumstances, the respondent No,2 is hereby directed to dispose of the applications of the petitioner sent to him in the nature of intimation vide letter, dated 27-5-1998', 25-6-1998 and 26-6- 1998, in accordance with law within a period of fortnight from today and submit report of compliance to this Court."
' Subsequently a Criminal Original No,979-W of 1998 was also filed complaining about the inaction on the part of respondent No,2. According to the petitioner the respondent No,2 did not take any action and till date the said applications which were sent to respondent No,2 in the nature of letters etc. Are awaiting disposal.
3. The present grievance of the petitioner is that since the change brought about in the executive body of the petitioner in its meeting held on 27-5-1998 had not been approved by respondent No,2, therefore, under the law, the period of two years' tenure of the said executive body of the union has not started as yet. It is also added that the respondent No,2 may be directed to approve the executive body of the petitioner so that they may enjoy their tenure of two years starting from the date of approval of the executive body. As a matter of fact and it may not be possible for the petitioner to deny that they have remained in the office and enjoyed their tenure since 27-5-1998 which according to the terms of their own constitution was bound to expire on 26-5-2000.It was also brought to my notice that the said union has remained in the office for the last 4 years but no elections were held to the various offices of the said staff union on the ruse that the approval as to the change in the executive body of the election had not been granted by the respondent No,2, therefore, under the law the mandatory period of two years as per terms of the constitution of the union had not started at all. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on subsections (4) and (5) of section 8 of the I.R.O., 1969, the provisions afore-noted read as under:-- "(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Ordinance, every alteration made in the constitution of a registered trade union and every change of its officers shall be notified by registered post by the trade union to the Registrar within fifteen days of the such change.
(5) The Registrar may refuse to register such change or alteration if it is in contravention of any of the provisions of this Ordinance, or if it is in violation of the constitution of the trade union."
' A bare reading of the sections afore-noted would show that any change or alteration in the office-bearers may be refused to be registered by respondent No,2 on the ground that the same is in contravention of any of the provisions of the Ordinance, or in violation of the constitution of the trade union. The much talked about approval of the RITU is not spelt out by the said provisions. The reliance of learned counsel on the practice of RITU whereby he said to have issued letters of approval is not of much help for the same is not provided under the law. On the contrary it can be safely concluded that the Registrar having not proceeded to reject the change has impliedly approved the same for it does not appeal to reason that the executive body of the union was allowed to continue in their office for a period of more than two years. It is, however, deplorable that the executive body of the union did not hold the elections even in spite of the fact that they had factually remained in their office for more than two years with the result that democratic progress was stalled because of maneuvering and adamant attitude of the petitioner. Additionally, the RITU also did not bother to look into the affairs of the union inasmuch as he did not take steps to hold elections. The total conduct of both, the union as also the RITU, to say the least, is illegal and cannot be approved.
4. The abovesaid aspect apart, this being a case of election to the union which was mandated to remain in the office for a fixed period of two years only but such an election was not held despite the lapse of the said period, the petitioner-union is not at all entitled to any discretionary relief of this Court for the Courts would refuse to perpetuate, in such circumstances, something which would be patently unjust and unlawful. Needless to add that this Court has always loathed to issue writs in aid of injustice. If any authority is needed, reliance may be placed on 'Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali and others v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others' (PLD 1973 SC 236). The rule laid down in the abovesaid judgment has been reiterated by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of 'M/s. Airport Support Services v. The Airport Manager, Quaid-e-Azam International Airport, Karachi and others' (1998 SCM R 2268). In the latter mentioned case, it was ruled at page 2280 as follows:-- "In the foregoing circumstances, while I am of the view that the act of termination and take-over on the part of the Civil Aviation Authority is neither lawful nor sustainable, the case remains unfit for extension of any relief here on account of the appellant's own conduct, of which the most revealing is that the petition in the High Court was verified and affirmed by Hafeez-ur-Rehman, the Managing Director of the previous C.A.A. Contractor, thereby relegating the relief to the appellant for the benefit of another, since a firm is nothing but a sum total of its partners. The jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution being discretionary, the Court, where equities require, may, even in the best of cases, choose to decline interference. Ever since the principle was recognized in Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali's case (PLD 1973 SC 236), the same has frequently been resorted to. This is one such case where, even though the respondents are found liable, redress need not follow. For such reasons, I am constrained to hold that this appeal should fail; but the parties be left to bear their own costs."
' It is thus, obvious that the petitioner is not entitled to any discretionary relief for it has failed to hold elections and is continuing with their tenure right in violation of the terms of their own constitution.
This conduct of the union cannot be blessed with any discretion of this Court.
5. Before parting with this judgment I may also observe that every day that has elapsed beyond the period of two years shall be deemed to be without lawful authority and usurpation by the petitioner union, therefore, respondent No,2 is directed to intervene in the matter so as to hold fair and impartial elections of the union so that a representative body of the union may be installed.
Copy of this petition shall be sent to RITU for action and compliance.
6. In result this petition is dismissed with costs.