KUALA LUMPUR: The appointment of G Rajase-karan as the Malaysian Trades Union Congress (MTUC) secretary-general was invalid as at least six unqualified delegates had unlawfully participated in the election of the MTUC’s principle office, the High Court here was told yesterday.

R Sivarasa, counsel for the plantiffs, the Peninsular Malaysia Workers Clubs Union and its secretary-general, Abdullah Sani Abdul Hamid, submitted that the six delegates from four unions in the MTUC were unqualified under Rule 6(6) of the MTUC consti-tution regarding the number of delegates entitled to be represented during the election.

He contended that as the six delegates were ineligible, they were not entitled to vote in the election.

“Therefore, the election of the MTUC’s principle office for term 2008-2010 which was held on Dec 18, 2007, for the secretary-general’s post was in breach of Rule 6(6) of the MTUC’s constitution,” he said.

Sivarasa was submitting before Judicial Commissio-ner Mohd Ariff Md Yusof at the hearing of an origina-ting summons filed by the plaintiffs against Rajaseka-ran to quash his position as MTUC secretary-general.

In the suit filed on May 29 last year, they are seeking, among others, a declaration that the election result for the post for the 2008-2010 term on Dec 18, 2007 was unlawful and void.

They also want the MTUC to hold a special delegates meeting for fresh elections for its secretary-general’s post within 60 days of the court order.

Sivarasa also submitted that Rajasekaran had failed to provide the delegates list during the election to unable the plaintiffs to verify the eligibility of the delegates and their entitlement to vote.

As the delagates list was still not supplied to date, there could be more ineligible delegates who might have participated and whom they were still not aware of, he said.

D.Kalai, counsel for Rajasekaran, submitted that based on the MTUC custom and practice, all the delegates were qualified to be present during the election as at Dec 18, 2007.

He said that under the MTUC constitution, the delegates list was not given to anyone unless requested and if the plaintiffs were dissatisfied with the election decision, they should have raised the matter before or during the meeting and not nine months after the decision.

“The plaintiffs also should write a letter to MTUC to request for the delegates list. But they did not do so,” he said, adding that the MTUC had compiled the delegates names through a form list and it was not computerised.

Hearing continues on June 12.

— Bernama