This appeal under section 11, I.R.O., is directed against the order of the learned VIth Labour Court Hyderabad , made on 13-4-1982, on the complaint of the Registrar, Trade Unions, directing the cancellation of the registration of the appellant union. In his complaint made under section 10, I. R. 0., the Registrar had alleged 7 violations of the constitution of the appellant union and the law by the appellant union which merited the cancellation of the registration of the union. The learned Labour Court did not find merit in 5 of these grounds and allegations. It, however, found that the appellant had committed an infraction both of the law and its constitution, in that it had submitted intimation of change of its office-bearers to the Registrar, Trade Unions beyond the period within which such intimation was required to be given, and further although the constitution of the union requires that the annual returns should be audited by auditors appointed by the general body of the Union, the accounts submitted had not been audited by such persons,
2. Subsection (4) of section 8 of I. R. O. Requires that not standing anything contained in any other provisions of the I. R. O., every change in the office-bearers of a registered trade union shall be notified by registered post by the trade anion to the Registrar within 15 days of such change. It is an admitted position that election of office-bearers of the appellant union took place on 6-11-1981.
Intimation of the change of office-bearers was sent by the union to the Registrar on 23-11-19.51 though the last date for submission of intimation was 21-11-1981. Thus the intimation was sent to the Registrar 2 days beyond the prescribed period. This is not all. The law requires that the intimation has to be sent by registered post. Admit--tedly, in the instant case, the intimation has to be sent by registered post, but appears to have been .Hand-delivered to the office of the Registrar, Trade Unions. As such there is two-fold infringement of the law in that intimation was sent beyond the prescribed period and was also not sent by registered post. No explanation has been offered by the appellant union for committing these 2 infringements of the law. In their .Reply statement, the union, while admitting that these 2 infringements. Had been committed by them, have merely asked for pardon. There appears to be no provision in law empowering the Registrar to pardon a union which has committed an infringement of law or to ignore such infringements. .
3. It would also appear, as found by the learned Labour Court, that the appellant union did not submit to the Registrar, Trade Unions, the accounts of the union for the year ending 31 12-1981, duly audited by audi--tors appointed by the general body, as required by the constitution of the union.
These accounts are said to have been received by the Registrar, Trade Union, on 20-1-1982. Up to that time the genera !Body had not even met muchless appointed the auditors. In order to cover up the defect, it is stated that the general body of the union met on 5-3-198 and appointed Messrs Nadeem Ahmed and Shaukat Alias auditors. They are she same persons who are said to have audited the accounts which were submitted to the Registrar, Trade Unions, on 20-1-1981. However, as these 2 persons were appointed by the general body after the accounts of the union had been submitted to the Registrar, Trade Unions, and no other returns duly, audited by these persons after their appointment by the general body, were submit--ted to the Registrar, Trade Unions, there would appear to be infringement by the union of its constitution. By itself this infringement may not have been considered sufficient for taking the serious step of cancellation of the registration of the appellant union but combined with the other infringements relating to intimation of change of office-bearers, there would appeal to be sufficient ground in support of the directions given by the learned Labour Court- for the cancellation of the registration of the appellant union.
4. For the reasons discussed by. Me above, I would dismiss the appeal.