' MUHAMMAD SHABBIR JAMAL (MEMBER).---This order disposes of the complaint filed by the Deputy Registrar before the Court for direction to cancel registration of the Respondent Union namely, Pakistan Telecommunication Lions Staff Union. The complaint so filed is based on the grounds here-in-under described:--
(a) The Respondent Union was registered on 9-1-1997 which was in contravention of the law as no verification of employees and members of the Respondent Union was made from the employer.
Also, no opportunity was afforded to the employer of being heard in the matter.
(b) The Respondent Union in violation of Article 24(A) of its own constitution as well as in contravention of section 6(1)(j) of I.R.O., 2002 failed to hold its internal elections. Rather it submitted bogus proceedings of the election of its office bearers which could not be approved by the RITU. In this connection the decision of the learned Member/RITU dated 16-9-2002 establishes that the union never held its elections in accordance with the provisions of its constitution. This order was upheld by the learned Full Bench of N.I.R.C.
(c) The office bearers of the Respondent Union continued to function long after expiry of their tenure in violation of its constitution.
(d) The Respondent Union has wilfully and deliberately failed to submit the duly audited Annual Returns for the year 1997-2003 within the prescribed period of time and on due date as provided by section 19 of I.R.O., 2002 and with Regulation 15 of N.I.R.C. (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973.
(e) Violation of Union's Constitution and section 6(1)(j) of I.R.O. 2002 and Regulation 15 of N.I.R.C.
(Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973 makes registration of the Respondent Union liable to be cancelled in accordance with Section 12(2) of I.R.O.
2002.
2. The above complaint was filed by the Deputy Registrar under the authority assigned to him by the order dated 16-9-2002 of the learned Member/RITU in Case No,20(01)/2001 filed by PTCL as Complainant against the Respondent Union.
3. This Court vide order dated 18-10-2004 impleaded PTCL through its General Manager as a party/Respondent.
4. The parties to the complaint were heard between 10-9-2004 and 30-12-2004 often on day to day basis, in compliance with the order of the Honorable Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, which was brought to our notice by the learned Counsel for the Respondent No,2.
5. We heard an identical complaint against another union namely, Pakistan Telecommunication Employees Union which too emanated from the filing of the complaint/application by PTCL before the learned Member/RITU for cancellation of its registration. The learned Counsel for Respondent No,2 (PTCL), Mr. Naeem Bokhari submitted that his arguments on legal points made during the hearing of the complaint against other union may also be treated as arguments in this complaint.
The learned Counsel precisely invoked the following provisions of the law to assail the registration of the Respondent Union.--
(i) It is the requirement of section 6(a)(iv) and section 6(a)(iv-a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 that the application for registration of a trade union shall be accompanied by total paid membership and a statement of total number of workers employed therein. Further requirement for registration of trade are provided in section 7(1)(a) to (1) and section 7(2)(a) & (b) of the I.R.O.
1969. These requirements cannot be met with unless the employer of the establishment or the industry concerned is consulted for verification of the requisite information.
' Note: Underlining is due to the emphasis made by the learned Counsel for Respondent 2.
(ii) Another requirement of the law within the meaning of proviso to section 3 of I.R.O. 1969, is that no worker shall be entitled to be member of more than one trade union at any one time. This too calls for proper verification with the involvement of the employer (PTCL) particularly in the organization where already 7 registered trade unions were present.
(iii) It is incumbent upon the Registrar to satisfy himself before issuance of Certificate of Registration that the applicant, trade union has complied with all requirements of the law (Ref.
Section 8(1) of I.R.O. 1969). This satisfaction is not a mechanical phenomenon but should be based on complete understanding of the correct information with full application of mind. It is obligatory on the part the Registrar to scrutinize the entire material placed on record to his full satisfaction.
(iv) Section 10(1)(ii) of I.R.O. 1969 is distinguishable from section 13(b) of I.R.O., 1969. Under the formal Section ground for cancellation of registration has been provided. The registration of a trade union is liable to cancellation if contravention fall under this section. The latter section i,e, section 13(b) provides for the power and functions of the Registrar to lodge or authorize any person to lodge complaints with the Labour Court or Commission for action. The word "action" appearing in this section will mean also direction for cancellation of trade union.
' Note. Underlining is due to the emphasis made by the learned Counsel for Respondent.2.
(v) Section 22-A(9) of I.R.O., 1969 provides that the Commission may on the application of a party or on its own motion initiate prosecution, trial or proceedings or take action with regard to any matter relating to its functions. The word "action" appearing in this provision also includes complaint for direction for cancellation of a trade union. The Chairman of the Commission under section 22-B (2) (b) has power to constitute Benches.
' Under section 22-B (6)(c) any order or decision etc. Made the Bench so constituted shall be deemed to be order or decision etc. Made by the Commission. Section 22-B, (3) of I.R.O., 1969 provides that reference to a Labour Court etc., shall be deemed to be a reference to the appropriate Bench of the Commission.
(vi) Filing of the Annual Returns on or before the prescribed date is an obligation of every registered trade union under section 21(1) of I.R.O., 1969. A few returns filed by the Respondent Union much later did not comply with the requirements of section 21(2) of I.R.O.
1969. Failure in this regard cannot be condoned and so the same has not been condoned by the learned R.I.T.U.
6. The learned Counsel for the Respondent in particular argued that:--
(i) The Pakistan Telecommunication Lions Staff Union was registered in contravention of I.R.O., 1969.
The application for its registration was filed on 2-6-1996 in the N.I.R.C. The false premise of this application was that it was the only trade union in PTCL which was made the basis of the order or registration dated 9-1-1997, meaning thereby that the Pakistan Telecommunication Lions Staff Union is the only union seeking registration in PTCL and no other trade union already stood registered.
(ii) The fact of the matter is that in the Referendum held in 1995, seven unions including Pakistan Telecommunication Lion Staff Union, Pakistan Telecommunication Workers (Pak Union), Telegraph Master Association of Pakistan, All Pakistan T&T All Staff Union (all registered with NIRC) contested the Referendum.
(iii) It is undisputed that no verification was done whether persons claiming to be members of the new union were in fact the employees of PTCL and was not members of any other union.
(iv) No inquiry was made for verification of information from PTCL and no objective determination was done to the effect that Lions Staff Union had not less than 1/5th membership of the total number of workers employed in PTCL. It is a contravention of section 7(2)(b) of I.R.O.
1969.
(v) Haji Khan Bhatti's own admission in cross-examination before Learned Member/RITU establishes that the membership of the Respondent Union was less than 1/5th of the total number of employees at the time of application for registration. The application therefore merited rejection on this account alone.
(vi) The union was registered without an objective satisfaction of the Registrar. No minutes of the General Body Meeting of the new union were submitted along with the application for registration: The constitution of the Respondent Union was never approved by the General Body.
(vii) The Annual Returns required to be submitted by April 30,1997, April, 30, 1998, April 30, 1999 and April 30,2002 were not submitted by the Respondent Union in contravention of Section 21(1) & (2) of I.R.O., 1969 and Regulation 15 of the N.I.R.C. (Procedure and Functions) Regulations 1973.
(viii)Haji Khan Bhatti even could not satisfy about his own position as President, as there is overwhelming evidence to the belief that since the registration of the union, no elections of the Central Executives have been held.
(ix) Even the bogus elections held after 15 months of the due date were not approved establishing yet another contravention of the constitution and the I.R.O.
1969.
(x) House was purchased in the name of the father of the Haji Khan Bhatti from the funds of the union.
(xi) Annual Returns submitted on 1-8-2000 were fraudulent in nature.
(xii) Union's funds were embezzled. Each of the false Annual Returns constitutes an offence under section 56 of I.R.O., 1969. This too constitutes grounds for cancellation of registration of Respondent Union.
7. No one else except Haji Khan Bhatti, Central President, Pakistan Telecommunication Lion Staff Union defended the case of the union in his short hand written statement submitted personally before this Court, which merely clarified his own position. He contended that he did not misappropriated union's funds. Whatever was spent was for the union. Haji Khan Bhatti further stated that all arguments already made are on the record of this Court. The cross examination of the affidavit-inevidence of the General Manager PTCL is available on tecord. Haji Khan Bhatti, however, showed his inability to engage a Counsel to defend his case. He reiterated his aversion that he did not misappropriate any funds. He further submitted that he is resident of Sindh wherefrom he cannot come to pursue the case. He reassured that balance of the union funds is in safe custody of the Accounts Department. He prayed that this Court may dismiss the complaint to meet the end of justice so that his worries may wither away.
8. After hearing the learned Counsel for Respondent No,2 and reading the statement of Haji Khan Bhatti we observed as under:--
1. Haji Khan Bhatti's statement cannot be treated as having been made in earnest. For his casual and non-serious approach, union which is an institutional body cannot be punished. Every allegations against Haji Khan Bhatti needs to be proved in a separate trial. He can be taken to tas,k if management succeeds to establish the same in a separate trial. Mere allegation cannot have any bearing on the legal status or registration of the Respondent Union.
' So far as the complaint for deregistration is concerned, we hold the same view as we held in other case that is to say:--
(a) Registration of a trade union is a phenomenon that comes into being on the satisfactory fulfilment of certain formalities under the law. Therefore process of registration is a time consuming and resource utilization activity. As registered body trade union exercises inmmunity from certain civil suits and in respect whereof law of criminal conspiracy as laid down in Pakistan Penal Code is also limited in application. Registration as such is a privilege or sanctity attached to it that makes it functional to strive for the protection of rights and furtherance of interests of workers albeit no prior permission or authorization in needed for formation of trade union. So any measure directed towards A cancellation of registration of a trade union needs to be taken with full care and caution.
De-registering a trade union in fact is a harsh step and deprives it from the privilege to work lawfully for the betterment of workers. It has therefore serious repercussion on the lives of workers.
As far as possible it should be avoid in the interest of good industrial relations.
(b) It is no way advisable to cancel the registration of a trade union on the basis of certain legal technicalities invoked by the learned Counsel for Respondent No,2 whose own local standi is not established to interfere in matters relating to trade unions.
(c) The right to form union has been guaranteed under the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and under the public policy announced by the Government from time to time. This right allows workers to negotiate collectively in accordance with the law and also under ILO Convention 1998 (Collective Bargaining) ratified by Pakistan. Non-registration of a trade union in fact disallows it is carry out its legal activities within the meaning of said instruments of public importance.
(d) The scheme of I.R.O. Based largely and conceptually on ILO's aforesaid instruments, is such that workers and employers bodies that are freely established cannot interfere in each other's affairs.
This essence of the law goes to strengthen the paradigm of non-interference and substantiates the arguments of learned Labour Representative in the other case that the employer or management has no locus standi to file complaint with RITU for cancellation of registration of trade union. The complaint filed before RITU by the PTCL was therefore not a good taste in the mouth and being devoid of element of tolerance in matters of unionization was improper ab initio also in the instant case.
(e) Pakistan Telecommunication Lion Staff's Union was registered on 9-1-1997. PTCL filed complaint before RITU on 5-1-2001 for its deregistration i,e, almost after four years. In the meantime much water had flown under the bridge and no damage seemed to have caused to the employer by the registration of the union. The management's own action as such is fully circumvented by principle of estoppels in terms of law and facts. This principle holds that an inconsistent position, attitude or course of conduct may not be adopted to the loss or injury of another. Not raising any objection to the registration in 4 years time is also hit by the doctrine of laches.
(g) We have also observed that the same person as Deputy Registrar was supporting the registration of the union after having been satisfied with the information brought to his knowledge and filed subsequently complaint before this Labour Court for direction to cancel the registration of Respondent Union. It may be due to the routine established for dealing with such cases. It looked bizarre to us. We feel that things have been done more in a mechanical way than by the application of mind. A trade union which has many year of service to the workers to its credit as a legitimate registered body cannot be deprived of the privilege of registration merely by a stroke of pen at the instance of a party whose locus standi is not to challenge it.
(h) Non-filing of Annual Returns of time is a rectifiable matter in our view and so if rectified, it should not constitute any basis for deregistration.
9. In view of the foregoing reasons we do not find any just cause to concede to the request of the Deputy Registrar for cancellation of the registration of the Respondent Union. We therefore decline the request. The complaint is dismissed.
Conpleted dismissed.