' The sole issue which falls to be considered in this appeal.' is whether the expression "every change of the office-bearers" occurring in subsection (4) of section 8, I. R.
0. Is wide enough to include the reelection of the same office-bearers for a further or - another term. Subsection (4) of the said section makes it incumbent upon a trade union to notify the Registrar of Trade Unions, by registered post, every change of its office-bearers. Subsection (5) of the said section authorizes the Registrar to refuse to register such change, if it is in contravention of any of the provisions of the I. R.
0. Or it is in violation of the constitution of the trade union. It is contended by Choudhry Rasheed Ahmad, learned counsel for the appellant union that the requirement of law is that only an alteration or variation in the persons holding office in a trade union is required to be notified to the Registrar Trade Unions while the submission of Mr. M. A. Khan, the learned counsel for the respondent company is that the expression "change of its office-bearers" is wide enough to include and cover the re-election of the same person as office-bearer.
2. The circumstances in which the above issue has arisen, shortly stated, are that the appellant union, through its General Secretary, Syed Zakir Hussain filed an application under section 32 (1-A), I. R.
0., before the learned IVth Labour Court on 12th April, 1980, for the adjudication of certain demands raised by it. The said application was resisted by the respondent company inter alia on the ground that it had been filed by an incompetent person. The contention of the respondent company in other words was that there was no proof that Syed Zakir Hussain was in fact the General Secretary of the Workers' Union or atleast that his name was not duly registered in accordance with law, with the Registrar, Trade Unions. Evidence of Mir Muhammad Baloch, the Labour Officer, East Division, Malir, Karachi, was led before the learned Labour Court to the effect that after the year 1974, the appellant union had not submitted the annual returns as required by section 21, I. R.
0. And that no change of office-bearers of the union had been notified to the Registrar. The case of the appellant union on the other hand was that the same person had been re-elected, as office- bearers and that particularly Syed Zakir Hussain had been re-elected as General Secretary of the union and consequently, there was no change of office-bearers which could be intimated to the Registrar Trade Unions. No specific denial was made by the appellant union of the allegation that it had failed to submit annual returns as required by section 21, I. R.
0. It may, however, be pointed out that the contention that the expression "change of its office- bearers" includes re-election of the same persons as office-bearers and on account of the failure of the appellant union to intimate such change, the General Secretary is not competent to initiate proceedings on behalf of the union, was raised by the respondent company after the evidence on the demands of the appellant union had been concluded. The contentions raised on behalf of the respondent establishment found favour with the learned Labour Court which has taken the view that by reason of the fact that the appellant union failed to intimate the re-election of or the result of the election of its office-bearers, it had contravened the provisions of subsection (4) of section 8,
1. R.
0. And purporting to rely upon the decision of this Tribunal in the cases of Employees' Union v. State Bank of India (1) and Sind Steel Corporation Union v. Sind Steel Corporation Ltd. (2) has dismissed the appellant union's application as having been filed through an incompetent person.
3. I have heard Mr. Choudhry Rasheed Ahmad for the appellant union and Mr. M. A. Khan for the respondent establishment. It is strongly urged by Mr. M. A. Khan that the scheme of the law requires that the Registrar, Trade Unions, must be kept informed from time to time of the names of the office-bearers of every registered union particularly changes of office-bearers so that he should be in a position to know whether there has been an infringement by any trade union either of its constitution or of any provision of law, and further whether any person disqualified from becoming office-bearer of the trade union had been elected as an office-bearer. Although I am in agreement with the submission of Mr. M. A. Khan that the Registrar has been given certain powers of supervision and even control over the trade union these powers are to be exercised only in accordance with the law and in any case every failure on the part of a trade union to comply with any provision of law or its constitution will not render the trade union liable to any penalty or any other disability except as provided by law, nor debar or prohibit its office-bearers from carrying on their functions and duties according to the Constitution of the trade union_ As already pointed out every change of its office-bearers is required to be intimated by the trade union to the Registrar, who is competent to refuse to register such change if it is in contravention of {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) 1981 PLC 154 (2) 1980 PLC 782 {{FOOT NOTE}} ' the law or in violation of the constitution of the Trade Union. It is therefore, to be seen what is meant by the expresssion "change of its office-bearers."
4. According to Webster's Third New International Dictionary, "change" means, the action of making something different in form, quality of state; the fact of becoming different, introduction of novel; an instance of making or becoming different in some particular; a departure from a norm; a deviation from established character, sequence, or condition; a divergence from uniformity or constancy in any quality, quantity or degree; alteration, modification, variation, mutation. ' The dominant characteristic of "change" thus appears to be a variation, modification or alteration of the existing state of affairs or things. If, therefore, the same person has been re-elected for a second or another term as the President, General Secretary or any other officer of the trade union, can it be said that there has been a change of the office-bearers in the trade union. I am inclined to the view that this cannot be considered to be a change at all, requiring intimation by the trade union to the Registrar under subsection (4) of section 8, I. R.
0. Since there is no modification or variation in such a case in the office-bearers of the trade union, but merely in their term of office the question of the Registrar refusing to register such change cannot arise.
5. Mr. M. A. Khan also sought to rely on Form 'D', the form for annual returns, which has been prescribed by the Industral Relations (Sind) Rules, 1973. The said form requires the full list of the officers or the executives of the trade union as it stood on 31st of December of the year to which the returns pertained to be furnished by the trade union. Apart from the fact that section 21, I. R. O., does not specifically provide for the furnishing of any sin list and merely provides for the submission to the Registrar of a statement showing all changes of officers made by the trade union during the year to which the statement refers, the failure to submit such a list or even the requisite returns will not have the effect of disabling the duly elected General Secretary or the President of a union from performing their duties and functions as such, but at best would make the union liable to punishment under section 62, I. R. O. And if such failure amounts to contravention of section 21,
1. R.
0., will authorize the Registrar, Trade Unions to apply to the Labour Court for the cancellation of the registration of the trade union. In my opinion the failure on the part of trade union to submit or furnish to the Registrar the prescribed annual returns, including list of its current office-bearers, cannot possibly entitle the management or the employer to challenge proceedings instituted by the trade union through its duly re-elected and authorized officers, for after all a trade union, being a body corporate, can only act through its office-bearers.
6. The upshot of the above discussion is that, in my opinion, the objection of the respondent company to the maintainability of the application of the appellant union under section 32 (1-A), I. R.
0., is not sound and is accordingly repelled. I would, therefore, set aside the award of the learned Labour Court and allow the appeal and remand the case to the learned Labour Court for decision on merits. This decision should not be construed as precluding the Registrar from taking any action, as provided under the law, for failure on the part of the appellant union to furnish him with the prescribed annual returns, or from place an impediment in the way of the respondent company in approaching the Registrar for taking any such action.