ORDER This is an appeal against the order dated 20-5-72 of the Registrar of Trade Unions, Sargodha Region, Lyallpur, cancelling the registration of the appellant-Union on the direction of Labour Court No. 3 dated 10-5-74.
2. After the certificate of registration of the appellant-Union had been issued, the Registrar came to know that in fact no meeting had been held for formation of the Union. The Assistant Director Labour Welfare, Sargodha was deputed to enquire into the matter and he obtained statements of 15 persons which were to the effect that they were never members of the Union and that no meeting was held before the formation of the appellant-Union. The learned Labour Court relying on the enquiry report Exh. P-A of the Assistant Director, Labour Welfare disbelieved the evidence of three witnesses produced by the appellant-Union in rebuttal and directed the Registrar to cancel the registration of the Union.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that at the time of the registration of the appellant-Union an enquiry was held by the Registrar and the certificate of registration was issued after the satisfaction of the Registrar and therefore the Registrar could not file a complaint before the Labour Court to get a direction for cancellation of the registration on the ground that the Union did not fulfil the requirements of section 6 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, when it applied for registration. 4.
The learned representative of the respondent, on the other hand contended, that issuance of a certificate by the Registrar was not a conclusive proof of the fact of the existence of the Union. 5.
Under section 8 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 it is laid down that the Registrar on being satisfied that the Trade Union had complied with all the requirements of this Ordinance, shall register the Trade Union in a prescribed register and issue a registration certificate in the prescribed form within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the application. Section 9 of the said Ordinance lays dowrkthat the Registrar on registering a Trade Union under section 7, shall issue a certificate of registration in the prescribed form which shall be conclusive evidence that a Trade Union has been duly registered under this Ordinance. According to section 4 of the Evidence Act when one fact is declared by the Act to be a conclusive proof of another, the Court shall, on proof of one fact, regard the others as proved and shall not allow evidence to be given for the purpose of disproving it. Therefore when once it had been es tablished that the Union had been duly registered the Court should not have allowed evidence to disprove that the Union had been duly formed. The learned Representative of the respondent relied on the judgment of the High Court in the case "Lahore Improvement Trust v. The Custodian, Evacuee Property, We t Pakistan, Lahore and 4 others (1/' wherein it was observed :-- "To apply subsection (2) of section 42 of the Town Improvement Act, 1922 it has to be established as a fact that the scheme had been made and then if a question arises whether or not it had been duly framed the notification will operate as a conclusive evidence of that fact. However, if it is established as a fact that the scheme had not been framed at all then the question that it had been duly framed will not be arise. In the present case, only a blue print delineating the boundaries had been submitted. It was by no means a scheme. In the circumstances, when the scheme was not there, the provisions of subsection (2) of section 42 cannot be invoked to plead that the scheme had been duly framed and sanctioned."
This ruling does not apply to the facts of the instant case because it has established that the Union had been duly registered. If this fact had not been established then of course the above ruling would have applied.
6. In any case under section 10 of the said Ordinance Registrar after a ' Union had once been duly registered, could apply to the Labour Court for a direction to cancel the registration of the Union if he found that the Union had--(i) contravened any of the provisions of this Ordinance the rules ; or (1) PLD 1970Lah. 257 (h) contravened any of the provisions of its constitution ; or (iii) made in its constitution any provision which is inconsistent with this Ordinance or the rule, or (iiv) dissolved itself or has ceased to exist. In the instant case there has been no contravention after the registration of the appellant-Union, therefore the Registrar could not have invoked provisions of section 10 of the said Ordinance to get a direction from the Labour Court to cancel the registration of the appellant-Union. I, accordingly accept the appeal and set aside both the orders of Registrar dated 20-5-74 and that of the Labour Court dated 10-5-74. *