DECISION These are two appeals under section 37(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance against the award of the Labour Court dismissing the industrial disputes filed under section 32(1-A) of the I.
R. O. Both the appeals have been consolidated as common question of law is involved.
2. The employees of the Bukhara Hotel formed a union on the 21st of April 1974 and was registered as such on the 17th of May 1974. A Charter of Demands dated 22-5-1974 was sent to the Management, subsequently a strike notice dated 4th of June 1974 was given. On the ground floor there is a restaurant known as Bombay Sweet Shop The proprietor of the restaurant is the director and partner of Messrs Bokhara Hotel. '
3. The Union of Bokhara Hotel employees convened a meeting of the general body on 16th of June 1974 and the constitution was amended extending its memberships to the employees of the Bombay Sweet Shop. The name of the Union was also changed to the Bokhara Hotel & Bombay Sweet Shop Employees Union. Intimation of this change was sent to the Registrar of the Trade Unions. Thereafter a separate Notice of Demands for the employees of Bombay Sweet Shop was sent on 17th of June 1974 in the name of the Bokhara Hotel & Bombay Sweet Shop Employees Union. Strike notice dated 29th of June 1974 was also served in the same name.
4. Separate conciliation proceedings in respect of the aforesaid two strike notices were resumed and concluded on the 16th of July 1974 without any settlement. In the meantime the workers went on strike. The new union known as Bokhara Hotel & Bombay Sweet Shop Employees'
Union made two separate applications on the basis of the aforesaid two strike notices and the Failure Certificates, under section 32 of the I. R. O. The applications were resisted and it was inter alia pleaded that the Union which was formed after the amendment of the constitution was not registered and, therefore, it was not a Collective Bargaining Agent and could not raise the dispute.
6. The Labour Court on the assessment of the evidence accepted the contention of the Management and dismissed the applications. It was also held that the strike resorted to by the workers was illegal. Aggrievedjby this the present appeals had been filed.
7. The only question which requires consideration is whether the new Union known as 'Bokhara Hotel and Bombay Sweet Shop Employees Union* is a legally constituted body so as to maintain the applications made under section 32 of the I. R. O. My answer is in the negative. In this connection section 8 of the I. R. O. requires consideration. It is under this section that the registration of the Union or alteration in the constitution or change of its officers, is required. Clause (1) requires that if the Union had complied with all the requirements of the Ordinance the Registrar shall register the Union and issue a certificate in the prescribed form within a period of 15 days from the receipt of application. But in case the application is found to be deficient in a material respect or respects this has to be communicated in writing to the Trade Union within a period of 15 days and the Union is required to comply with the objection within 15 days. Clause (2) lays down that if the objections have been satisfactorily met the Registrar shall register the Trade Unjon and issue the necessary certificate within 3 days but if the objections axe not satisfactorily met the Registrar may reject the application. Clause (3) lays down that in case the application has been rejected or Registrar has delayed the disposal of the application beyond the period of 15 days or has not issued a ceriificate of registration within three days as provided under sub-clause (2), as the case may be, the Trade Union may appeal to the Labour Court and the action will be taken on the result of thi appeal.
Clause (4) requires that every alteration made in the constitution and every change of its officials shall be notified by the Trade Union to the Registrar within 15 days of such change. Clause (5) empowers the Registrar to refuse a change or alteration if it is in contravention of any of the provision or in violation of the constitution. Clause (6) requires inclusion or exclusion of any constituent unit of a federation of Trade Union to be notified to the Registrar within 15 days. Section 8 Clause (7) gives a right of appeal to the Labour Court in case there is a dispute in relation to the change of officers of the Trade Union or any Trade Unioa is aggrieved by refusal of the Registrar under Clause (5). The Labour Court is required to dispose of the appeal within seven days.
8. It has been contended on behalf of the Union that as soon as amendment was made it was effective irrespective of the fact that this required the approval of the Registrar. According to him acceptance by the Registrar was a mere formality, I am unable to support this view. The plain reading of the provision of section 8 makes it clear that acceptance of change in the constitution by the Registrar is a condition precedent to the effectiveness of the change. It is not a mere formality. The Registrar has the power to refuse or to accept the change. In case the contention of the appellant Union is accepted it renders the provisions of Clause (5) which empowers the Registrar to refuse to register the change is rendered negatory and becomes redundant. No provision of the law can be rendered negatory or considered as redundant. Every provision of law has to be given effect. It is rather sad that the Union without waiting for the order of the Registrar proceeded to serve another demands notice and strike notice in respect of the employees of the Bombay Sweet Shop. To this it was urged on behalf of the Union that when the change was notified to the Registrar and no reply was received the presumption arose that it was accepted by the Registrar. 1 am unable to accept this contention. No provision of law had been pointed out allowing any such presumption. On the contrary Clause (3) has clearly provided that in case the disposal of the application was delayed beyond the period of 15 .days the Union had the right to file an appeal before the Labour Court. Of course this clause relates to the original application for registration but in piy view this can also be applied to the change in the constitution which may sought to be effected. They did not pursue the proceeding before the Registrar and instead raised industrial dispute on behalf of the workers of the Bombay Sweet Shop. Even if any such presumption arose it has been rebutted by the production of the order of the Registrar dated 16-12-1974. Indeed this order was passed about six months after the intimation of the change sect to the Registrar but that by itself is no reason to exclude the order from consideration. There is nothing on record to establish that this is not a genuine order. It was for the Union to have pursued the application made to the Registrar and taken suitable action for its implementation. Grievance has been made that no intimation of the rejection of charge was received by the Union but at least this fact had come to the notice of the union when the order of the Director was produced in this Court. Even then no appeal was filed. So the order of the Registrar has assumed finality and cannot be questioned,
9. Indeed, it is true that the notice of demands and notice of strike given on behalf cf the Union which stood before the amendment was legal and the Union as then existed was a 'Collective Bargaining Agent' for the employees of the 'Bukhara Hotel' and the conciliation proceedings had also taken place separately but it is unfortunate that tte application under1 section 32 of tae Industrial Relations Ordinance was not made by the original! Union but in the name of the Union which was formed after the aforesaid!" amendment of the constitution. Thus the application by the new Union,! whose change was not accepted by the Registrar was not maintainable. 10 In the result both the appeals are dismissed.