DECISION This is an appeal against an Award of the learned Presiding Officer of Labour Court No. Ill, dated the 10th of April, 1974, whereby the learned Court came to the conclusion that the appellant- Union has violated the provision of section I6 (1) (d) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter called the 'Ordinance') and, therefore, its registration was liable to be cancelled. He accordingly ordered the Registrar to cancel the registration of the Union. The facts giving rise to the appeal briefly put are these. The Union has filed two Applications, one under section 32 (1-A) of the Ordinance being Application No. 2 of 1973 and the other under section 34 of the Ordinance having No. 65 of 1973, for acceptance of their demand. In order to put pressure on the respondent- Company to accept their demand they resorted to deliberate and organised 'Go-Slow' practice in a way that the production figure was reduced. The learned Court came to the conclusion that the appel- lant-Union's registration is liable to be cancelled.
2. Mr. Malik Muhammad Saeed, the learned Advocate for the appellant contended that the case for cancellation is not covered by section 10 (1) read with section I6 (1) (d) of the Ordinance. Section 10 (1) reads as under :-- "The registration of a Trade Union shall be cancelled if the Labour Court so directs upon a complaint in writing made by the Registrar that [the Trade Union has-- (/) contravened any of the provisions of this Ordinance or the Rules; or (#).............................................................................................. Section I6 (1) (d) reads as under :-- "No workman or Trade Union of workmen and no person acting on behalf of such Trade Union shall-- (a).......................................................................................... \b) ................................................................................ (c) a (d) compel or attempt to compel the employer to sign a memorandum of settlement by using intimidation, coercion, pressure, threat, continement to a place, physical injury, disconnection of telephone, water, and power facilities and such other methods."
3. Malik Muhammad Saeed contended that 'Go-Slow' if it amounts to unfair Labour practice cannot be said to be covered by section I6 (1) (d). On the other hand, Mr. Mehmood A. Ghani, the learned Advocate for the respondent contended that the terms "pressure" and such "other methods" are wide enough to include 'Go-Slow' tactics. On the other hand Mr. Malik Muhammad Saeed contended that as it involves cancellation of the Union's registration the provision should be strictly construed and if two possible the one which favours the Labour should be accepted. There is much force in the contention of Mr. Malik Muhammad Saeed. It is true 'Go-Slow' is also a method to pressurise the Management to accept the demands of the workers by reducing production. If the intention of the Legislation had been to include 'Go-Slow' as an unfair labour practice on the part of the workmen there was nothing to stop the Legislature to mention it in express words. The ommission seems to me intentional. It is true 'Go-Slow' had been made punishable under section 59 of the Ordinance with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five-hundred rupees or with both. Cancellation of the Registration of the Union is a very drastic step. It should not be easily largely adopted if there is any alternative remedy available. If the Union has committed the wrong of 'Going- Slow' those responsible could be punished under section 59 of the Ordinance.
4. For the reasons given above, I would allow the Appeal and set aside the Order.