1. The order dated 13th of May, 1984 is informed to be illegal and improper.
2. The facts of the case are that permission was granted to the petitioner on 23rd of January, 1982 to close down the establishment. Thereafter, the petitioner terminated the services of the workers and they are alleged to have taken away their dues in full and final settlement of their claims. On 31st of March, 1982, the Registrar cancelled the registration of the union on the ground that all the workers had settled their accounts and the union had come to an end. The General Secretary of the Union challenged the Order of closure passed under order 11-A but the revision was dismissed vide orders, dated 27th of April, 1983 by this Tribunal. The General Secretary challenge the orders of cancellation of the registration of the union before the learned lower Court and made an application in the appeal for direction to the management to produce the record of settlement of dues. The said application was accepted and the petitioner was directed vide orders dated 2-4- 1983 to produce the record. The representative of the petitioner is alleged to have appeared before the learned lower Court on 5th of April, 1984 along with the summoned record. An objection was raised on behalf of the Union on the recording of the statement of the petitioner on the ground that it would be deemed that the management had been imp leaded as a party in the proceedings. In the meanwhile, it was ordered that all the cases of Multan would be heard by the Punjab Labour Court No.9 only, therefore, the case came up before the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No.9, Multan, who on 13-5-1984 rejected the application, dated 28th of June, 1982 for summoning the record. By another order of the same date, the learned Presiding Officer directed the Registrar to restore the registration of the union.
3. It has been argued by the representative of the petitioner that learned lower Court had no jurisdiction to review its own order dated 2-4-1984 by rejecting the application for the summoning of the record. So far as order whereby the Registrar was directed to restore the registration of the union is concerned, it has been argued that since the establishment had been closed and the services of the workers terminated and for the reason that workers received the dues in full and final settlement of their claims, the union had come to an end, no question of restoration of its registration could arise. It has also been argued that without summoning the record and giving findings that the services of the workers had not been terminated and that they had not received their dues in full and final settlement of their claims, the registration could not be restored. Learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to advance any forceful and convincing arguments.
4. When one the learned lower Court had summoned the record to resolve the question whether the services of the workers had been terminated and they had received their dues in full and final settlement of their claims, the registration of the union could not be reviewed. If this contention of the petitioner is correct that the services of the workers stand terminated and that they have received their dues in full and final settlement of their claims, the union has ceased to exist.
5. Needless to say that the union consists of its members who are the employees of the establishment. If the services of the workers have been terminated and their memberships come to an end that the union cease to exist. This is true that the establishment has started re- functioning. It has been argued that some business of the establishment has been given on contract and for the remaining some workers have been re-called. At present, this is not known how many workers have been re-called and whether the membership of the union has been revised to such an extent that there is justification to the existence of the union. All these are questions of fact which could be restored after evidence was recorded.
6. It has been argued on behalf of the respondent that the petitioner has no locus standi to bring this revision inasmuch as its application for being imp leaded as a party to the appeal of the union had been dismissed and the revision preferred against the orders of the learned lower Court rejected.
7. This is true that the management has no locus standi to bring the revision. But revision is not a right and a party who brings a revision comes forward only with an information of the Tribunal that certain illegal orders have been passed and the proceedings before the Labour Court are illegal.
8. The present revision, therefore, is only an information and it cannot be said that the management was debarred from giving information to this Tribunal.
9. As a result of the what has been observed above, I accept the revision and setting aside the impugned orders direct the learned lower Court to re-decide the appeal after summoning the record and allowing the parties before him proper opportunity to prove their contention.
10. A. E.