DECISION This is an Appeal under section 11 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, against the order of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. III, Karachi, dated the 9th of February 1974, whereby the learned Court directed the Registrar of Trade Unions to cancel the registration of the appellant- Union under section 10(1) of the Ordinance on the ground that the Union had resorted to illegal strike and thereby disobeyed the Order of the Labour Court which were in violation of the provisions of the Ordinance.
2. Mr. Mehmood A. Ghani, the learned Representative for the respondent has raised Preliminary Objection that the appeal is not maintainable as it is not preferred by the General Secretary of the Union but by the President. The scheme of the industrial Relations (Sind)
Rules, 1973 would disclose that there is much force in this contention. Under the Rules it appears that every thing must be done by the General Secretary. The appeal, no doubt, can be filed by the Trade Union but someone has to file an appeal on behalf of the Trade Union. 1 am of the view, after perusal of the different provisions of the Rules of 1973 and also old Rules. In this connection reference may be made to Rule 4 of 1973 particularly Form 'C\ Rule 4 provides for an Application for the Membership of the Trade Union which shall be in Form 'C\ The importance of Form 'C', in ray opinion, is that the Application is addressed to the General Secretary of the Trade Union. Forms 'D' and 'E* to Rule 4 are also important Rules. It is General Secretary who is required to maintain a Register in Form 'D' showing particulars of subscription paid by the members of the Union. Form 'E' has also to be maintained by the General Secretary which shows all money received by a Trade Union. Rule 68 requires that Notice under subsection (3) of section 26 shall be in Form *U\ It will be signed by the General Secretary of the Union. This was also the position under the old Rules. In this connection a reference may be made to Messrs A. I. Silk Mills Ltd., (1). I would hold that the appeal is not maintainable as it has not been filed by the proper person.
3. I have heard Mr. Siddiqui, Advocate for the appellant, on merit also. 1 would dispose of his contention briefly. He contended, in the first place, that on 21st of May 1972, when an application was made to the Registrar by the respondent, the Registrar alone had the power to move the Labour Court for cancellation of the Registration. It could not authorise any one else to lodge complaint with the Labour Court for cancellation. Section 13, according to him, was amended in 1973 so as to confer the power on the Registrar to authorise any person to lodge complaint to the Labour Court for action against the Trade Union. On the face of it Mr. Siddiqui's contention has no force, as the amendment was brought about on the 10th of November 1972, whereby the Registrar were authorised to authorise any person to lodge a complaint. Moreover, the application was made not in May 1972, but in 1973.
In this connection a reference may be made to the Affidavit of Mr. Rauf, Director of the respondent- Company, wherein he stated that on 21st of May 1973, the Management applied to the Registrar of Trade Unions for permission to lodge the complaint under section 10 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. In the second place, Mr. Siddiqui contended that 'person' means someone of the Department and not of the Management. There is no force in this contention. The word 'person' cannot be given such a limited interpretation. If such limited interpretation were given the object of the amendment would be frustrated. The object, apparently, appears, to be to enable the Registrar to empower any one on his behalf to move the Labour Court for cancellation of the Registration. In this case Director of the Company was authorised to lodge complaint before the Court. I would hold that the Registrar rightly authorised the Director to move the Court. For the reasons given above, the Appeal is dismissed. (1) 1970 PLC 662