DECISION These are seven appeals which were disposed of by common order ordering the cancellation of the Registration of Trade Union of the appellants. The applications were filed under section 10 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance on the ground that the appellants are not Industries and, therefore could not form a 'Trade Union*. These appeals can be disposed of on the short ground that the complaint has not been filed properly. Section 10(1) of the Ordinance reads as under1-- "10. Cancellation of registration.--(1) The Registration rof 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 ()----------------- ------- (HO------------------------ (/v)----------------------- The Registrar of Trade Unions on 18th February 1974, on the basis of my order made a complaint which was in some cases presented by the Senior Clerk of the Registrar to the Labour Court and in some other cases by the Labour Officer, under section 13(6) of the Ordinance which enumerates the powers and functions of Registrar of Trade Unions. The relevant provision is section 13(6) which reads as under:-- 13. Powers and functions of Registrar.--The following shall be the powers and functions of the Registrar:-- (a)
(6) to lodge (or auihorise any person to lodge) complaints with the Labour Courts for action against Trade Unions for any alleged offence or any unfair labour practice or violation of anv provisions of this Ordinance. (A----------------------- 2. It is, therefore, clear that the Registrar should either lodge a complaint in question in person or authorise some one else to do so on his behalf. Though a specific objection was taken as to the presentation of the complaint A that it was not validly presented the Registrar, did not file an affidavit or appear in Court that he had authorised either the Senior Clerk or the Labour Officer to file the complaint on his behalf. There is a clear distinction in lodging a complaint and merely signing the same. At best it can be presumed that the complaints have been signed by the Registrar but there can be no presumption in law that the persons who lodged the complaintjs on his behalf were authorised to do so. Section 13(A) is silent as to thej manner in which one has to be authorised. It is silent as to whether the authority has to authorise in writing. Oral Authority could be as much an authority as a written one. There must, however, be some evidence to this effect that these persons were given oral authority to lodge complaints on behalf of the Registrar. I would hold in these circumstances, in the absence of any evidence, that those persons who lodged the complaints on behalf of the Registrar, were not authorised to do so. I would hold that the complaints were not properly filed and therefore, not in accordance with law.l The orders therefore, are set aside. No one appeared on behalf of thep Registrar before me.
3. Two other points were also raised before me namely (1) that the Registrar could order cancellations only if condition laid down under section 10 of the Ordinance are violated (2). That after the case decided by the Sind & Baluchistan High Court in A. F. Furguson & Company
(1) that the ambit of the term "Industry" has been enlarged so as to include the appellants-Unions.
It is not necessary to go into these questions as the appeals have been allowed on the question that no valid application had been made for cancellation of the Registration.
4. Stay Orders are withdrawn. (1) 1974 PLC98