' The two revisions captioned above emerge from the order dated 25-6-1987 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 2, Lahore, whereby the appeal of Mazdoor Ittehad Union Mahmood Textile Mills Limited, Muzaffargarh (hereinafter described as the petitioner) has been dismissed. Since certain points have been decided by the learned lower appellate Court against Pak Workers Union Mahmood Textile Mills Limited, Muzaffargarh (hereinafter described as respondent No, 2), the said union has also brought a revision. In this judgment Registrar of Trade Unions, Dcra Ghazi Khan will be described as respondent No,
1. Since both the revisions emerge from the same order, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.
2. The facts of the case giving rise to the revisions are that the petitioner union held a meeting on 23-3-1985 and after forming union by the name and style of Mazdoor Ittchad Union and election of office-holders, sent the papers to the Registrar for the registration of the union but the Registrar vide his order dated 2-5-1985 rejected the petition. The petitioner union, thereupon, went in appeal before the learned Labour Court No, 9, Mu'tan, which was dismissed. The petitioner union had challenged that order in revision which was vide decision of this Court dated 25-6-1986 accepted and setting aside the order of the learned lower appellate Court, the appeal was remanded to the said Court for decision afresh directing that the relevant record, which the parties desire to produce should be summoned from the Registrar and the employer and proved. It was pointed out that the question of duel membership was not properly decided and that no evidence was produced on the question of payment of subscription to respondent No, 2 union by producing check off forms, hank record and the record of the employer to show that subscription was being deducted and paid by check off system to respondent No, 2 union and not to the petitioner union at the time the question of registration of the petitioner union had arisen. The learned lower appellate Court namely Punjab Labour Court No,2. Lahore to whom the case was transferred, afforded proper opportunity to the parties to produce evidence and the evidence which was produced was received. The learned lower appellate Court has dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the very meeting alleged to have been held by the petitioner union on 23-2-1985 for the formation of the union was fake as some of the members and office-holders were shown to be on duty on the said date and time in the mills and, therefore, no question of their participation in the meeting could arise; that some of the office-holders and many persons shown as members of the petitioner union had left service after the Registrar had refused to register the union uptil the decision of the appeal by the learned lower appellate Court, with the result that the membership shown to have been 297 at the time of the formation of the union had Tallen down to 129 only and thus the strength of the petitioner union was much below the one-fifth of the total number of employees of the mills.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to successfully challenge the findings of the learned lower appellate Court to the effect that very =Cling held on 23-1-1985 was fake. No evidence has been pointed out to show that the office-holders and the members who were shown to be on duty on 23-2-1985 were actually on leave and were not on duty and that they had actually attended the meeting. This is noteworthy that one of the grounds on which the Registrar had refused to register the petitioner union was that the proceedings of the meeting were not genuine as 16 members and two office-holders were on duty in the mills on the date and at the time when the meeting is alleged to have been held at a considerable distance from the mills. If the said persons had actually attended the meeting, the petitioner could prove this fact by examining the immediate in charge of those persons to show that although the said persons had attended their duty but at the time the meeting was held, they had taken short leave in writing or orally from the in charge. In the absence of such an evidence the correctness of the attendance record maintained by the mills cannot be doubted. Since the very meeting was fake, the whole structure based upon it falls to the ground.
4. The other ground given by the learned lower appellate Court may outwardly appear to be not cogent but when considered minutely shows that it is weighty. Usually the strength of the union at the time it was found and the Registrar was requested for its registration is to be consideed and the change which occurred afterwards is not relevant, because if a contrary view is taken, it would pave the way for the management to fail the formation of the union by terminating the services of the members and the office holders. In the present case the assertions made by the Registrar and respondent No,2 are not that the management dismissed or terminated the services of the members and officeholders of the petitioner union after the Registrar had refused to register the said union but the plea is that the said persons had left service. This is not the case of the petitioner that the said persons were removed by the mangement and that they had challenged the orders of their removal from service and either succeeded or that their petitions were still pending. In cases where the workers themselves leave service, it cannot be said that they still remain members of the union of which in the beginning they had become members or office-holders.
They may be taken to be outsiders but the requirement of law for the registration of third union is that its members should be one-fifth of the total strength of the mills. So the outsiders cannot be considrcd. Needless to say that a union cannot be registered without having its office holders.
Since at present two of the officeholders of the petitioner union are out of service, the union cannot be registered. If the petitioner is allowed to elect other office-holders, it would mean that the question of registration would arise now and cannot be said to be continuing from 23-2-1985.
5. Respondent No,2 union has challenged the finding of the learned lower appellate Court to the effect that the existence of check off system has not been proved. But the learned counsel for respondent No,2 union and the Registrar have not been able to effectively meet the grounds given by the learned lower appellate Court, on the point. The provision of deduction of union subscription by check off system is provided in section 23 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. According to subsection (2) of section 23, the employer is bound to deposit within fifteen days of the end of the period for which he has deducted the subscription the entire amount so deducted by him in the account of the trade union on whose behalf the deduction has been made. The provision of subsection (2)(a) is that the Collective Bargaining Agent shall maintain with a branch of the National Bank of Pakistan or with a Post Office Saving Bank an account to which shall be credited the entire amount deducted by the employer under subsection (1) from the wages of the members of the trade union. One of the provisions of subsection (1) is that the approval of each individual workman from whose wages subscription is deducted shall be taken. There is absolutely no evidence on the record on any of the points mentioned above. The case of the respondents is that the subscription alleged to have been deducted from the wages of the members of respondent No,2 union were paid to Sufi Muhammad Ismail which means that the employer has never deposited the deducted subscription in the accounts of respondent No,2 union. Even there is no evidence to this effect that respondent No,2 union had any accounts with any bank. So the payment of subscription to Sufi Muhammad Ismail, even if accepted, cannot be taken to be the subscriptions paid to respondent No,2 union. There being no evidence that the approval from the workers, from whose wages subscription is alleged to have been deducted for respondent No,2, was taken, it cannot be said that the said workers are paying the subscription to respondent No, 2 union in token of being its members. In these circumstances, the learned lower appellate Court is correct in finding that no legal check off system exists.
6. As a result, both the revisions fail and are dismissed.
Revision .