' An application has been moved by the Registrar Trade Unions for permission to cancel the registration of the Trade Union cited as Opponent No, 1 which is being disposed of by this order.
2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to filing of above application, are that the opponent No, 1 was registered as a Trade Union on 30-11-1983 having Registration No, HR/168/83 under the provisions of I.R.O. To represent the workers employed in the Organization cited as opponent No, 2.
3. By a notification issued on 18-9-1988 the Government of Sind Agricultural, Food, Livestock, and Fisheries Department Government of Sind declared following categories of their staff as "Employer".
(1) Assistant (All).
(2) Foreman/Mechanical Assistant/Electrician/Mechanic/Plant Operator.
(3) Store-keeper/ Store Assistant.
(4) Typist/Steno-Typist/Stenographer.
(5) Clerk/Dispatch Rider/Time-Keeper/Gate-Keeper.
(6) Field Assistant. ' within the meaning of sub-clause (d) of clause (viii) of section 2 of the Ordinance vide Notification No, 21(41) S.O.(DEV)/87, dated 18-9-1988 as a result of which the members of the staff belonging to the categories mentioned above were taken out from the definition of worker/workman. Since the Opponent No, 1 was registered to represent only the workmen employed in the Organization cited as Opponent No, 2 and after the number of categories of officials of Opponent No, 1, who are members/office-bearers of the Opponent No, 1, have been declared as "Employer" by the Government, the Opponent No, 1, lost its legal character as union. The Complainant, therefore, issued a show-cause notice under letter No, RTU/HYD/88/1011, dated 25-9-1988 which was received by the General Secretary of Opponent No, 1, on 26-9-1988 as per A.D receipt available on the record. By this notice the opponent No, 1, was specifically informed that the case under section 10 of the I.R.O. Would he lodged before this Court without further notice in case no reply to the show- cause notice was received within a period of 7 days. The Opponent No, 1, however, requested for a further period of 7 days by its letter No, SSCEU/34/88, dated 2-10-1988 but in spite of wastage of time for more than 3 weeks the opponent No, 1, failed to submit the reply. According to the complaint since the constitution of Opponent No, 1, has become inconsistent with the provisions of section 7(1)(d) of I.R.O., the same is liable to be cancelled particularly in view of the fact that all the office-bearers members of the Executive Committee of the union are not workmen and have contravened the provisions of I.R.O. As well as clause 3 of its own constitution which require that only a workman as defined under the Ordinance could become its member. By this complaint the permission for cancellation of the registration of the union cited as opponent No, 1 is sought.
4. I have heard Mr. Daud Pota, Assistant Director on behalf of the Complainant, Mr. Rizvi learned Advocate for Opponent No, 1, and Mr. Bashir Awan learned Advocate for Opponent No, 2.
5. The main contention of Mr. Daud Pota is that after the issuance of the notification by the Government of Sind the union, shown as Opponent No, 1, was asked to show-cause as to why in the circumstances mentioned above, it should not be cancelled but the Opponent No, 1 failed to submit any reply though sufficient time was given to it.
6. Mr. Rizvi did not controvert all the factual assertions made in the complaint and did not resist the complaint on the facts but raised the following legal grounds:--
(1) That the complaint is incompetent as it has not been filed by Registrar himself in person.
(2) The complaint does not disclose the .Provision of law under which it has been filed.
(3) Once the union is registered under section 7 of I.R.O. It cannot be deregistered.
(4) A Constitution petition has been filed in the Hon'ble Sind High Court Circuit Bench, Hyderabad wherein the notification in question has been impugned.
7. Mr. Bashir Awan learned Advocate for the opponent No, 2, made twofold submission. Firstly he based his submission on a decision of this Court in Case No, 2/80, decided on 31-5-1980 whereby the trade union in HDA was ordered to be cancelled upon the complaint of the Registrar Trade Union which was made on the basis of identical notification issued by the Government of Sind in pursuance of special provisions of I.R.O. Secondly he cited unreported decision of the Hon'hlc Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No, HYD-249/88 given on 4-9-1988 whereby a trade union was ordered to be cancelled when it was found that it had contravened the provisions of section 7(d) of I.R.O.
1969.
8. In rebuttal Mr. Daud Pota submitted that the complaint is signed by the Registrar Trade Unions himself who has authorized him to pursue and argue the matter on his (Registrar's) behalf which is usual practice prevalent in this Court since long and even otherwise it cannot be said to be illegal thing. Mr. Daud Pota further submitted that in different paras. Of complaint it is clearly mentioned that the complaint has been filed under section 10 of I.R.O. Of 1969. He also submitted that apart from violation of section 7 of I.R.O. The opponent No, 1, has violated the clause 3 of its own constitution, also.
9. So far as the legal point No, 1 raised by the learned counsel for the opponent No, 1, is concerned the record shows that Mr. Daud Pota has been authorized to represent the complainant and argue the case and the learned counsel for opponent No, 1, could not point out any provision of law which stands contravened if the Registrar himself does not appear for arguing the matter. The Registrar himself has been shown as complainant and there can be no objection if on his behalf some body else duly authorized by the complainant, argues the matter.
10. Since in the body of complaint it is clearly shown that it is made under section 10 of I.R.O. And in the end the permission for cancellation of the opponent No, 1 is specifically sought under section 10 of the I.R.O. There is no substance in the second contention of the learned counsel also.
11. So far as third plea of the learned Advocate for the opponent No, 1, is concerned, the authorities quoted above are sufficient to come to the conclusion that a trade union once registered can be permitted by this Court to be cancelled B on a complaint filed in this Court under section 10. Both the authorities are fully attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case and replying upon the same I find no force in the third contention also.
12. The learned counsel for the opponent No, 1 had obtained certain adjournments on different grounds including the ground that the notification of the Government of Sind has been challenged before the Hon'ble High Court but he could not produce any stay of the Hon'ble High Court. It may be mentioned here that the mere fact that the notification of Government of Sind, on the basis of which registration of Opponent No, 1, was sought to be cancelled has been challenged is not enough not to entertain the complaint. At present the aforesaid notification is in full force and so long it has not been cancelled it has to be acted upon. In this view of the matter I do not find any substance in the last contention of the counsel for the Opponent No, 1.
13. In view of reasons mentioned above I allow the complaint/application and direct the complainant to cancel the registration of Opponent No, 1, forthwith.