DECISION This is an appeal under section 11 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance of 1969 (hereinafter called the Ordinance) against order dated the 27th of July 1974 of the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. IV in an application under section 10 of the Ordinance. Mr. Siddiqui, the learned Advocate for the appellant has raised many points before me which I propose to dispose of separately.
2. In the first place, Mr. Siddiqui contended that the application was belated one. It was filed after two years. In the first place no time limit is prescribed under section 10 of the Ordinance.
Moreover, the applicant camel to know only on 17th of May 1974 and he made the application on the lOth^ of June 1974 for cancellation of the Registration of the Union. I would1 hold that no delay has been caused in making the application for cancellation of the Registration of the Union.
3. In the second place, it was contended that the office-bearers of the Union were under arrest and, therefore, the strike cannot be said to be illegal. In this connection, it may be mentioned that the admitted position is that the strike was held to be illegal and no appeal was filed against the same.
The order holding the strike to be illegal, holds good as no appeal was filed and, therefore, it is not important if the office-bearers were under judicial lock-up. If the order was illegal, it could have been challenged in the Court of law but the same has not been done up to now.
4. In the third place, it was contended that the learned Court has not taken into consideration Sind Industrial Rules of 1970 under which if the workers are 5,000 or more, the office-bearers can be up to 25. The short reply to this contention is that it has not been established that the Management employs 5,000 workers or more. In order to apply the relevant Rule, it was incumbent on the appellant to establish that the Management employed 5,000 workers or more. In the absence of any proof, it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned Advocate, Mr. Siddiqul.
5. Lastly, it was contended that had the Registrar taken objection when the Union communicated the number of office-bearers, the Union would have been in a position to challenge the same. The submission that the failure on the part of the Registrar to do so works as an estoppel. There is not much force in this contention. Under section 10 () of the Ordinance, it requires that the Registration of a Trade Union shall be cancelled if it contravenes any of the provisions of its constitution. It does not make it incumbent on the Registrar that he should have made an objection earlier as to the contravention of the provisions of its constitution. It is true, it would have been better if the Registrar had taken this objection earlier when he was informed about the change of the office-bearers but under section 10 of the Ordinance, does not put any such limit on the powers of the Registrar. Ii hold that the Registrar was not debarred from taking this point and proving! the same. The appellant was unable to satisfy me that he can have morej than one Vice-President and an Office Secretary and more than 8 Members ofj the Executive Committee. As I have already held that there is no evidence to establish that the Management employs more than 5,000 workers and, therefore, the 1970 Rules do not apply. The objection is repelled.
6. For the reasons given above, the appeal is dismissed.