This is an appeal under section 11 (A) of I.R.O. Against the order of the Labour Court permitting the Registrar to cancel the registration of the Union.
2. The staff of Habib Bank had formed a Union which was duly, registered in 1969. Somewhere in June, 1975 there was a general strike of the employees of various banks in the country. It came to the notice of the Registrar of Trade Unions, Sind that the appellant-Union had staged illegal strike since 16th June, 1975 which still continued. He, therefore, deputed an officer to check the activities of the Union and it was found that the workers had resorted to strike at the instigation of the Union. A report to that effect was also made by the Management. Since strike was resorted to without making compliance with the requirement of law it was deemed to be illegal. Consequently on 23rd June 1975 tie Labour Court was moved by the Ragistrar under section 10 (1) of I.R.O. For the direction of cancellation of registration of the Union. Notice of this was issued to the Union.
3. After the issuance of the notice there were six hearings but the notices could not be served on the Union as according to the reports of the Bailiff made on the various notices, the office was found closed. Consequently on 18th August 1975 an application was made to the Labour Court that since it was not possible to effect the service of notice, substituted service by publication in a newspaper to ordered. The application was granted and notice was published to the Daily `Mashriq' dated 29th August 1975 but there was no appearance on behalf of the Union. The Labour Court, therefore, ordered that proceedings be taken ex pare. The case was adjourned to 4th September 1975 for filing affidavit in support of the allegations made in the application. This was done and the impugned order was passed directing the cancellation of the registration. In pursuance of this order the Registrar cancelled the registration and informed the Union by registered letter No. DLS/RTN/CD/75/3810 dated 19th September 1975. Aggrieved by this the present appeal had been filed against the order of the Labour Court.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant while none appeared on behalf of the Registrar. The only ground pleaded before me is that ex parte proceedings were not justified for the reason that there was no service of the notice upon the Union. I find considerable force in this contention. There is nothing in the Ordinance itself or Sind Rules of 1973 as to in what manner service should be effected and the Civil Procedure Code is not applicable to these proceedings but the manner of service has been laid down by Rule 12 of the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Rules, 1960 framed by West Pakistan Government under section 37 of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1959. These Rules are still in force, by virtue of sec--tion 67 (2) (b) of Ordinance of 1969 and have not so far been superseded or repealed. The aforesaid rule lays down that any notice, summons, process or order issued by the Court may be served either personally or by registered post. Thus it is clear that to modes are provided for the service of the process of the Court. It is not disputed that effort was made to serve the notices personally. Whenever the Bailiff visited the office of the Union it was found closed, and, therefore, personal service could not be effected. This is borne out by the endorsements made by the Bailiff. Apparently this could not be treated as service upon Union and, therefore, substituted service was ordered.
5. The question that arises for consideration is whether the substitute service as purported to have been effected in this case can be treated to be proper service. In my view this cannot be. No attempt was made to send notices by registered post which was the second alternative provided by the above rule. Thus there was non-compliance with the rule. In this connection it may be pointed out that it was stated by the learned counsel that the letter of cancellation sent by registered post by the Registrar was duly received.
6. It seems that the learned Labour Court ordered the substitute service on the basis of the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code but unfortunately the mode and manner laid by the Code had also not been followed. In order to apply the principles laid by the Civil Procedure Code it was necessary that copy of the notice should have been affixed on the office of the Union as required by rule 17 of Order V, C.P.C. In the present case the learned Presiding Officer proceeded to order the substituted service under the last part of rule 20 but this rule could not be invoked for the simple reason that the Union had an office and the Bailiff had actually visited that office on more than one occasion as revealed by the statement of facts. Rule 20 relating to the expression ---such other manner--- contemplates a different situation. There is also nothing on record to show that the copy of the notice was affixed on the Court's notice board. So the mere publication in the newspaper cannot be treated to be a proper service of the notice. Thus there is a serious legal informity and the ex parte proceedings are not sustainable.
7. In the result I allow the appeal and set aside the order of the Labour Court as well as the Registrar of the Trade Unions and remand the case to the Labour Court for disposal on merits after due service on the parties.