The appellant through the titled appeal assailed the order dated 18-02-2019 passed by the Registrar Trade Union whereby the registration of the appellant union was cancelled.
2. Shortly the facts of the case are that the appellant has filed an application for registration of the union which was accepted and the appellant union was registered vide order dated 26-02-2018. However, after registration of the appellant, the management has filed an application for cancellation of registration of the appellant union on the grounds that the union has not fulfilled the requirement of 1/5th membership of the total workmen and that the union has only membership in the province of Sindh and the members of the union have been terminated by the management. On the application moved by the management Deputy Registrar was directed by the RTU to enquire into the matter and submit his report, and in view of the report submitted by the Deputy Registrar, he was directed to move a reference before the Commission for seeking permission to cancel the appellant union. On the reference permission was accorded and finally the registration of the appellant union was cancelled vide order dated 18-02-2019. Feeling aggrieved by the said the appellant has filed the titled appeal.
3. Learned labour representative of the appellant has inter alia, contended that Section 11 (3) of IRA, 2012 states that the Registrar shall cancel the registration of a trade union within seven days from the date of receipt of permission from the Commission; that cancellation of the union ought to have been made within seven days but the registration of appellant union has been cancelled after the lapse of above 138 days which under the law could not have been done by the RTU; that the learned RTU on the application dated 21-03 -2018 filed by the management directed the Deputy Registrar to move a reference before the Commission for seeking permission to cancel the appellant union which was accordingly accorded by the Commission vide order dated 03-10-2018; that the learned RTU in utter violation of the law has passed the order for cancellation of the appellant union vide the impugned order dated 18-02-2019. In conclusion labour representative has prayed for acceptance of the appeal and for setting aside the impugned order .
4. Conversely learned counsel for the respondent inter, alia has contended that the appellant union has obtained registration by fraudulent means; that the appellant union claims its membership in the province of Sindh as such admittedly the union does not have any membership beyond Karachi; that the members of the union have not put their signatures alongwith their names; that the union does not qualify for registration as an industry-wise trade union; that the appellant union had filed false statement to obtain registration by misrepresentation and fraud; that Section 11 (1) (c) of IRA, 2012 says that the registration of trade union may be cancelled by the Registrar if the union obtained registration by fraud or by misrepresentation of facts; that the period of seven days as provided in Section 11(3) is directory and not mandatory; In this regard learned counsel has relied upon case law titled Niaz Muhammad Khan vs. Mian Fazal Raqib reported as PLD 1974 SC 134. At the end learned counsel has prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. The key point of the learned labour representative of the appellant is that under Section 11 (1)(c) of IRA, 2012 it is mandatory for the RTU to cancel a trade union within seven days after obtainin g permission from the Bench of the Commission. As per version of the appellant permission was granted on 03-10-2018 and the appellant union was cancelled vide the impugned order on 18-02-2019 as such the RTU has no power or authority to cancel the union after a lapse of more than four and half months for which no explanation has been given in the impugned order .
7. The period mentioned for the cancellation under Section 11(c) of IRA, 2012 is seven days is not mandatory but directory as it does not envisage any consequences in case of non-compliance within specified period. In this respect reliance may be placed on case titled Niaz Muhammad Khan vs. Mian Fazal Raqib PLD 1974 SC 134 in which the honourable Supreme Court has held as under:- "As a general rule however , a statute is understood to be directory when it contains matter merely of direction, but not when those directions are followed up by an express provision that, in default of following them, the facts shall be null and void. To put in differently , if the act is directory , its disobedience does not entail any invalidity; if the Act, is mandatory disobedience entails serious legal consequence amounting to the invalidity of the act done in disobedience to the provision. "
Further reliance may be placed on case titled Kazi & Kazi Ltd. vs. Fifth Sind Labour Court, Karachi and 3 others 1975 PLC 822 wherein it is held as under:- "while prescribing the time limit no consequence is provided for not complying with it. Therefore, inspite of the use of the word shall the direction as to time, within which the public official has to perform his duty according to it, should be construed as directory ."
8. The nutshell of the above discussions is that the learned RTU has rightly cancelled the appellant union after recourse to due course of law i.e. filing reference, obtaining permission from the Bench of the Commission and after adopting due process cancelled the union. The appeal filed by the appellant is meritless which is hereby dismissed. CMA Bearing No. 24(53)/2019 is also disposed of. There is no order as to costs. File be consigned to the record room after due completion.