' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, I.-On 2-1-2002 an application was filed for the registration of respondent No.2-Union. This application was pending. The information was led before the Registrar of the Trade Union, Muzaffargarh that the said office-bearers are not the employees of the appellant. The Registrar sought some information and clarification. While the application was still pending; respondent No.2 filed an appeal before the learned respondent No.l on 16-2-2002. During pendency of this appeal, the Registrar dismissed the application on 9-2002. .The learned respondent No.l allowed the appeal on 6-2003 and directed the Registrar to register respondent No.2-Union.
2. Malik M. Tariq Rajwana, Advocate for the appellant argues that the leaked Labour Court has taken hyper technical view of the matter and proceeded to allow the appeal on short ground that the requisite information was not called for within 15 days.
3. No one has turned up on behalf of respondent No.2 regarding whom the report is that it is no longer existent and notice has been affixed on the premises in question. They are accordingly proceeded against ex parte.
4. Now the appellant has placed on record documents (Annexs: "A, J & K") to show that all the major office holders stood removed from service and were no longer in the service of the appellant. I. Now the sole ground on which the learned Labour Court has allowed the appeal is that the Registrar failed to communicate the objections within 15-days of the filing of the application.
Now a bare reading of section 8 of I.R.O., 2002 would show that the provision of said period of time is not mandatory. It will be interesting to note here that the learned Labour Court itself kept sitting on the appeal from 5-2002 to 12-6-2003 whereas under subsection (9) of the same section 8, it is required to decide the appeal within seven days of its receipt. Going by the arguments of the lamed Labour Court it should have dismissed the appeal on this short ground alone that he had failed to decide the appeal within prescribed time mentioned in section 9 of R.O., 2002.
6. Be that as it may what is important is that law requires a Registrar to satisfy himself that a trade union has complied with all the requirements of the Ordinance and it is upon this satisfaction that law bound him to register the trade union. It is but obvious that the Registrar was not satisfied that the provisions of Ordinance have been complied with, otherwise, as also noted by me above, respondent No,2 was not entitled to the registration in the absence of the existance of conditions mentioned in section 6(2) (i) of I.R.O., 2002. The F.A.O. Is accordingly allowed and the impugned order dated 12-6-2003 of the learned Punjab Labour Court No,9, Multan is set aside. No order as to costs.