MIANGUL HASSAN AURANGZEB, J:- Through the instant writ petition the petitioner, Platinum Pharma Workers Union Pakistan, impugns the order dated 17.05.2019 passed by the Chairman, National Industrial Relations Commission ("N.I.R.C.") whereby its appeal against the order dated 18.02.2019 passed by the Registrar Trade Unions ("R.T.U."), was dismissed. Vide the said order dated 18.02.2019, the R.T.U. cancelled the petitioner's registration as a trade union.
2. The record shows that on 26.02.2018, the petitioner was granted registration as a trade union in the establishment of respondent No.3, M/s Platinum Pharma (Pvt.) Ltd. under the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 ("I.R.A."). On 21.03.2018, respondent No.3, M/s Platinum Pharma (Pvt.)
Ltd., filed an application under Section 11 of the I.R.A. for the cancellation of the petitioner's registration on the grounds that (i) the petitioner was not an industry-wise trade union as defined in Section 2(xviii) of the I.R.A. and (ii) that the petitioner did not have the requisite number of members as required in Section 8(2)(b) to be registered as an industry-wise trade union. The petitioner did not file a reply to the said application. The proceedings pursuant to the said application culminated in the R.T.U.'s order dated 10.09.2018 whereby a direction was issued for moving a reference before the N.I.R.C. seeking permission for the cancellation of the petitioner's registration as an industry-wise trade union. Vide order dated 03.10.2018, the Member, N.I.R.C. granted permission for the cancellation of the petitioner's registration. Subsequently vide order dated 18.02.2019, the R.T.U. cancelled the petitioner's registration. The said order dated 18.02.2019 was assailed by the petitioner in an appeal before the Chairman, N.I.R.C., who, vide order dated 17.05.2019, dismissed the said appeal. The said order dated 17.05.2019 has been assailed by the petitioner in the instant writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, after narrating the facts leading to the filing of the instant petition, submitted that the petitioner's membership was more than one-fifth of the workmen employed in the establishment of respondent No.3 and therefore the requirements of Section 8(2)
(b) of the I.R.A. had been fulfilled before the registration was granted to the petitioner on 26.02.2018 and when respondent No.3 sought the cancellation of the said registration on 21.03.2018; that in the process for obtaining permission from the N.I.R.C. for the cancellation of the petitioner's registration, the petitioner had not been associated or afforded an opportunity of a hearing; and that Section 11(3) of the I.R.A. requires the registration of a trade union to be cancelled within seven days from the date of the receipt of the permission from N.I.R.C. whereas in the instant case the petitioner's registration was cancelled by the R.T.U. more than four months after the grant of permission by the N.I.R.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for the writ petition to be allowed in terms of the relief sought therein.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3 submitted that the sole ground taken by the petitioner in its appeal against the R.T.U.'s order dated 18.02.2019 was that the petitioner's registration had not been cancelled within the time limit prescribed in Section 11(3) of the I.R.A.; that the petitioner is estopped from taking grounds in the instant writ petition which were not taken by it in its appeal against the R.T.U.'s order dated 18.02.2019 whereby its registration was cancelled; that this Court ought not to interfere in the concurrent orders passed by the R.T.U. and the Chairman, N.I.R.C. for the cancellation of the petitioner's registration as an industry-wise trade union; that the instant petition is not maintainable inasmuch as the petitioner (M/s Platinum Pharma Workers Union Pakistan) is not a juridical person after the cancellation of its registration; and that the instant writ petition should have been filed in the name of the person who signed the same.
Learned counsel for respondent No.3 prayed for the writ petition to be dismissed.
5. I have heard the contentions of the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have perused the record with their able assistance.
6. After respondent No.3 filed application dated 21.03.2018 before the R.T.U. for the cancellation of the petitioner's registration as an industry-wise trade union, the petitioner did not bother to file a reply to such an application. In the said application, the two essential grounds agitated by respondent No.3 were that the petitioner's membership falls short of the required threshold of one- fifth membership of the workmen employed in respondent No.3's establishment, and that since the petitioner's membership was not beyond the Province of Sindh, it did not qualify as an industry- wise trade union.
7. The order dated 10.09.2018 passed by the R.T.U. shows that the Deputy Registrar, N.I.R.C. had submitted a report endorsing the grounds taken in respondent No.3's application for the cancellation of the petitioners' registration. The said report was submitted after the Deputy Registrar had inquired into the matter. Through the R.T.U.'s said order, it was decided to move a reference to N.I.R.C. seeking permission to cancel the petitioner's registration.
8. Order dated 03.10.2018 passed by the Member, N.I.R.C. shows that he had satisfied himself that the petitioner does not have membership beyond the Province of Sindh and that its membership is less than one-fifth of the workmen employed in respondent No.3's establishment. The said order shows that the inquiry officer had reported that there were a total of 467 employees in respondent No.3's establishment. Since the petitioner's membership was only of 55 workmen employed in respondent No.3's establishment, it fell short of the required threshold of 93 employees. It was on this basis that permission was granted for the cancellation of the petitioner's registration.
9. Vide order dated 18.02.2019, the R.T.U. cancelled the petitioner's membership. The sole ground taken by the petitioner in its appeal against the said order dated 18.02.2019 was that the order for the cancellation of the petitioner's registration was not passed within a period of seven days after permission for such cancellation was granted by the N.I.R.C., and consequently the requirements of Section 11(3) of the I.R.A. were not fulfilled. True, Section 11(3) requires the Registrar to cancel the registration of a trade union within seven days from the date of the receipt of permission from the N.I.R.C. In the case at hand, such permission was granted by the N.I.R.C. vide order dated 03.10.2018 and the R.T.U. cancelled the petitioner's registration vide order dated 18.02.2019, i.e. more than four months after permission was granted by N.I.R.C. for the cancellation of the petitioner's registration.
The provisions of the I.R.A. do not provide for any consequence for the failure on the part of the R.T.U. not to have cancelled a trade union's membership within seven days of the grant of permission for doing so by the N.I.R.C. In the case of Muller & Phipps (Pakistan) Limited Vs. District Magistrate, Karachi (PLD 1974 Karachi 261), the question involved was that of the consequences which were to follow in case of failure to decide a matter within the period stipulated by law. It was 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."
10. In the case of Kazi & Kazi Ltd. Vs. Fifth Sindh Labour Court (1975 PLC 822), it was held as follows:- "Section 25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 is also silent about the consequences which would follow in case the decision is not given by the Junior Labour Court within seven days. In this view of the matter and following with respect the law laid down in the above cited case I am of the view that the provision that the Junior Labour Court decide the case brought before it within seven days, is only directory in nature. As such, the failure of the Junior labour Court to decide the case within the stipulated period would not vitiate its decision."
11. As regards the ground taken in the writ petition that the petitioner had members not just in the Province of Sindh but in other parts of Pakistan as well, no material has been placed on the record as to cause this Court to hold that the petitioner had membership in more than one Province and was consequently qualified to be registered as an industry-wise trade union. Even otherwise the petitioner, in its grounds of appeal before the Chairman, N.I.R.C., did not agitate this ground or the ground that its membership was more than one-fifth of the total workmen employed in the establishment of respondent No.3. It is well settled that a ground not taken in appeal before the forum below cannot be agitated in a petition seeking the issuance of a writ of certiorari unless the ground pertains to a pure question of law. 12.
Since I have been given no plausible reason to interfere with the concurrent orders passed by the R.T.U. and the Chairman, N.I.R.C., the instant petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.