' The Sind Text Board, the respondent herein, has been established under the Sind Text Board Ordinance, 1970, which was promulgated on 26-11-1970. It has been declared to be a corporate body and its main function is to prepare and execute schemes pertaining to the production and publication of Text Books, guide books and other reading material required by students and teachers of schools and certain colleges and institutions. The appellant is the Workers' Union in the said Board. The said Union was registered under the provisions of section 8, Industrial Relations Ordinance, However, the Chairman of the Board applied to the Registrar, Trade Unions, for the cancellation of the registration of the appellant-Union on the ground that the Board is an educational institution and no Union could be formed therein. The Registrar apparently agreed with the contention of the Chairman of the Board, but instead of himself applying to the appropriate Labour Court for cancellation of registration of the appellant-Union under section 10, Industrial Relations Ordinance, authorized the Chairman himself under section 13(b), Industrial Relations Ordinance, to take proceedings before the learned Labour Court for the cancellation of the registration of the appellant-Union. The Chairman accordingly filed a complaint before the VIth Labour Court, Hyderabad, praying for the cancellation of the registration of the appellant-Union.
The learned Labour Court repelled the contention of the appellant Union that in view of the provisions of section 10 only the Registrar was competent to file a complaint for the deregistration of the Union and took the view that clause (b) of section 13, Industrial Relations Ordinance, empowers the Registrar to authorize any person to file a complaint on his behalf under section 10, Industrial Relations Ordinance. The learned Labour Court, however, allowed the complaint of the respondent Board and directed the Registrar, Trade Unions, to cancel the registration of the appellant-Union, as in his view the respondent Board was not carrying on any industry and hence no Trade Union could be formed therein.
2. I have heard Mr. Abdul Majeed, the learned Representative for the appellant Union, and Mr. Mahmood Ghani, who appeared for the respondent Board. Mr. Abdul Sattar Dawoodpota, Assistant Director, Labour Welfare, appeared for the Registrar, Trade Unions, Hyderabad. Two issues are involved in the instant case, namely:-
(I) Whether a complaint for the cancellation of registration of a Trade Union section 10, Industrial Relations Ordinance, can be filed only by the Registrar, Trade Unions, himself, or whether he can authorize any person to do so, in exercise of the powers under clause (b) of section 13, Industrial Relations Ordinance; and
(ii) Whether the respondent Board is carrying on an "industry" and a Trade Union therein can be lawfully formed.
3. Both the above points are covered by recent decisions of the Karachi High Court. In the case of Pakistan Security Press Employees' Union v. Sind Labour Court, a learned Single Judge of the High Court has held, after a careful examination of the provisions of sections 10 and 13 and other relevant provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, that section 10 is a self-contained special provision dealing with the cancellation of registration whereas section 13(b) is a general provision empowering the Registrar in all other cases to authorize any person to lodge a complaint and hence a complaint for the cancellation of the registration of a Trade Union can only be lodged by the Registrar himself. This Tribunal, in the case of Pakistan Central Cotton Committee's Employees'
Union v. Pakistan Central Cotton Committee, decided on 11-8-1979, has followed the above view.
Following these decisions, I am of the view that the Chairman of the respondent Board was not competent to lodge complaint for the cancellation of the registration of the appellant-Union but only the Registrar is competent to do so.
4. Mr. Mahmood Ghani, however, contended that though technically the proceedings in the Labour Court were initiated on the complaint of the Chairman of the respondent Board, upon being duly authorized in this behalf by the Registrar, Trade Unions, the latter was not only a party to those proceedings but had also filed a written statement, supporting the complaint by the Chairman of the respondent Board, and consequently, it should be construed that there is sufficient compliance of the provisions of section 10, Industrial Relations Ordinance. I regret that I see no force in this contention. Section 10 is in the nature of a penal provision as it provides roar the cancellation of registration of a Trade Union upon a complaint. This provision must, therefore, be construed strictly.
It was mainly on this basis that the learned Judge of the Karachi High Court appears to hay taken the view that the said section is self-contained and the provision for authorization by the Registrar in clause (b) of section 13 would not apply to the proceedings under section 10, Industrial Relations Ordinance. Merely supporting the complaint made by an incompetent person does not make the complaint itself proper or valid one. The Registrar cannot, therefore, be deemed to be the complainant or to have made the complaint and the requirement of section 10 cannot be deemed to have been fulfilled.
5. In regard to the second issue which falls to be considered in this case, Mr. Mahmood Ghani has invited my attention to the very recent decision by a learned Single Judge of the Karachi High Court in the case of National Book Foundation v. National Book Foundation Employees' Union. The learned Judge, after reviewing a host of decisions on the subject, including the latest decision on the point of the Supreme Court of India reported in (1978) 2 SC C 213, has held that the National Book Fundation is not an' industry within the meaning of section 2(xiv), Industrial Relations Ordinance, and hence grievance petitions by its employees under section 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, are not maintainable. The National Book Foundation has been established under the1 2 National Book Found5tion Ordinance, 1972, which was replaced later by the National Book Foundation Act, 1972, for substantially similar purposes for which the respondent Board has been set up. According to the ratio decidendi in the above case, the respondent Board will not also be deemed to be an industry for the purposes of section 2(xiv), Industrial Relations Ordinance, Mr. Abdul Majeed, however, informs me that a Letters Patent appeal has been filed against the above decision and a stay order has also been issued.
6. Since I have held that the complaint by the Chairman of the respondent Board was incompetent, the decision of the learned Labour Court, cancelling the registration of the appellant-Union, cannot be maintained and is accordingly set aside. Of course, it will be open to the Registrar, Trade Unions, to file a complaint under section 10, Industrial Relations Ordinance and it will then be for the learned Labour Court to pass appropriate orders thereon. 1979 PLC 410 1980 PLC 305