JUDGMENT This is an appeal against the order dated 13-5-1974 of the Registrar, Trade Unions, Lahore Region, Lahore, withdrawing the registration of the Services Hospital Employees' Union, appellant.
2. The appellant-Union was granted certificate of registration on 2-10-1972. Some time later the Medical Superintendent of Services Hospital, I ahore, filed a complaint under section 200, Criminal Procedure Code read with sections I6, 22(c), 53 and 57 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 before the National Industrial Relations Commission, against 8 office-bearers of the said Union alleging that they had committed Unfair Labour Practice. ln that complaint prayer was also made for the cancellation of the registration of the Union on the ground that the office-bearers of the Union were Government Servants, governed by the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, I960, the Government Servant Conduct Rules and other Rules enforced by Government from time to time and further the Services Hospital was neither an Industrial nor a Commercial Establishment, and therefore did not fall within the purview of the provisions of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 to enable it to become a Trade Union. After a brief hearing on 24-9-1973, the Commission adjourned the proceedings and infomed the parties that the next date of hearing would be communicated in due course. However, no further date of hearing was communicated but instead the complainant received Memorandum No. RTU/5422, dated 3-10-1973 from the Registrar, Trade Unions, which recited that Industrial Relations Ordinance was not applicable to the Services Hospital, therefore, the registration of the Union under the said Ordinance became ultra vires and that registration certificate of the Union was accordingly being withdrawn. Against that memo. was filed in the High Court.
3. The order of the Chairman of Industrial Relations Commission dated 27-9*1973, read as follows :-- "The Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 is not applicable to the Services Hospital, Lahore, and the objection raised by the complainant regarding the non-applicability of the said Ordinance on Services Hospital has been upheld. Accordingly the complaint filed with the Commission is not maintainable and is dismissed. The complainant if so advised, can take d;sciplinary action against the delinquents." The High Court vide judgment dated 10-5-1974 decided that the National Industrial Relations Commission had no jurisdiction to hold that Industrial Relations Ordinance was not applicable to Services Hospital Employees' Union. It was observed by the High Court that the Commission had no jurisdiction to go into the question whether under the terms of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, a particular Union has been properly registered or not.
This question falls to be decided by the Registrar, Trade Unions, when an application for registration is made before him and he is called upon to register a body as Union. It was further observed that this question may also arise where the registration was erroneously granted by the Registrar and he considers that this error requires to be recalled which could conceivably be done by the grantor, on the principle contained in section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The registration of a Union can also cancelled under section 10 of I. R. O., 1969, if the Labour Court so directs in the situations enumerated in the said section, upon a complaint in writing made by the Registrar. Finally it was held that the order of the National Industrial Relations Commission dated 27-9-1973, was contrary to law and of no legal effect. Since the order of the Registrar withdrawing the registration of the Union had been passed admittedly on the basis of the observations contained in the order of the Commission and had not been passed in exercise of the independent judgment of the Registrar, the order of withdrawal also became infirm in law. Moreover, a valuable right had been conferred upon the petitioner and the Registrar, before withdrawing it should have, in conformity with the principles of natural justice, afforded a hearing to the petitioner. His order passed on 3-10-1973 could not thus be upheld on the legal point. The case was remanded to the Registrar to decide the question as to whether the certificate of registration was against the provisions of law by a speaking order after hearing the parties.
4. The Registrar, thereafter, passed the impugned order, against which the present appeal has been preferred.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant raised a legal objection that the respondent had no jurisdiction to cancel the registration of the appellant- Union suo motu in view of section 10 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant in support of his contention relied on the judgment of this Tribunal in the case, Ch. Fazal Din & Sons Labour Union, Sialkot v. Registrar, Trade Unions, Lahore Region, Lahore (1). In the above case the facts were that the Registrar had withdrawn the certificate of registration already issued to the Union on the ground that the said Union had concealed true facts that they were engaged in the execution of the order of Defence Department. It was held that the Registrar had no power to cancel the registration of a Trade Union suo muto. He had to approach the Labour Court under section 10 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and only under 1he direction of the Labour Court could cancel the registration.
7. Section 10 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 reads as follows :-- "Cancellation of registration.--(1) 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-- (1) contravened any of the provisions of this Ordinance or the Rules; or (*7) contravened any of the provisions of its constitution ; or (iii) made in its constitution any provision which is inconsistent with this Ordinance or the rules, or (iv)dissolved itself or has ceased to exit. (2) ......... . . ........................ " Under the above section the Registrar can only make a complaint to the Labour Court for the cancellation of the registration of a Union, if the situations enumerated in the above section arise after its registration. This action is contemplated after the registration has taken place and not for situations arising prior to the registration. (1) PLJ 1974 Tr. C (Labour 79) Mohd. Shah v. Registrar, Trade Unions (Rai Abdur Razzaque Khan, Presiding Officer)
8. In the present case the Registrar found that the certificate of registration previously granted to the appellant-Union was against the provisions of law, as Services Hospital was not an industry. This matter could not have been the subject-matter of section 10 of the Ordinance, because it had arisen prior to the registration of the Union.
9. In any case the High Court in the writ petition, as already observed, has held that the Registrar can cancel the registration of the Union if granted erroneously on the principles contained in section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Therefore the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is of no avail.
10. Now the point for determination is as to whether this appeal is competent. In this connection it will be convenient to reproduce section 11 of I. R. O., 1969 which reads as follows :-- 11. "Any Trade Union aggrieved by the decision given under section 10 may appeal to the Labour Appellate Tribunal, which may uphold or reject the decision." The order of the Registrar under appeal is obviously not a decision given under section 10 of the Ordinance, because the Registrar had not moved the Labour Court for a direction to cancel the registration of the appellant-Union. Therefore this appeal is not competent and is accordingly, dismissed as such. 1975 PLC 103 [Labour Court Punjab] President: Rai Abdur Razzaque Khan, Presiding Officer MUHAMMAD SHAFI versus The REGISTRAR, TRADE UNIONS, LAHORE REGION, LAHORE , decided on 11th March 1974. Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIlI of 1969)-- ___ S. 8(7)-- Change of office-bearer in mid-term--General Secretary of Union dismissed from establishment concerned and seeking employment elsewhere thus unable to perform functions of Trade Union- Members of Union calling emergency meeting and electing new General Secretary -- Constitution of Union providing that there should always remain one General Secretary and if previous General Secretary resigns other must be chosen or elected--Approval of change of General Secretary during mid-term period precedented -- Order of Registrar in refusing to register change, in circumstances, set aside and change of General Secretary accepted with effect from his election in emergency meeting, [p. 104]A Order This is an appeal under section 8 (7) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, preferred against refusal of the Registrar, Trade Unions to a change of office-bearer i. e. General Secretary of the Unions dated 31st January 1974. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that Mr. Shahid Tanvir was the General Secretary for the year 1973 of Coca Cola and HICO Employees* Union, Lahore. It is stated at bar that he was dismissed from service by the Employer. He started service with some other employer at Gujranwala and so was unable to take keen interest in the affairs of the Union. Workers of the Union held emergency meeting in this respect on 7th December 1973, in which Mr. Shahid Tanvir was also present. Workers made him to resign and he did so and in that very meeting they elected Mr. Muhammad Afzal as their Secretary, but Registrar, Trade Unions, refused to accept this change-- vide his order dated 31st January 1974, hence this appeal. Contention of the respondent is that there is no provision in the Constitution of the appellant's Union for mid-term change in the office-bearers. Appellant has shown me a photostat copy of a letter from the Registrar, Trade Unions, Lahore Region, Lahore to Mr. Shahid Tanvir by which a similar mid-term change for the Presidentship of the Union was approved by the Registrar so this argument of the respondent is not tenable. I have perused the Constitution, in its Article 21, provision exists that there will be a General Secretary of the Unions and if one resigns, other must be chosen or elected by the Union. There should remain one General Secretary, so this is no violation of the Constitution. Second contention of the respondent is that the members of the Union have violated the Provision of Article 17 (4). This is to the effect that an emergency meeting can be called by a written notice of 20% members of the Union. The learned counsel for the appellant has shown me that notice which was signed by more than 20 % workers This fact was never verified by the Department before the refusal. For the foregoing discussion, I direct the Registrar, Trade Unions, Lahore Region, Lahore to accept this change from 7th December 1973, the actual date of election.