' The facts leading to this complaint are as under:
1. A complaint was filed by the learned Registrar Industrywise Trade Unions on 2-8-1992 under section 10(1) of the I.R.O., 1969 for cancellation of the registration of the unions i,e, respondents Nos. 1 to 5 on the grounds mentioned in the complaint.
2. The parties were served and the case has been pending since 1992 before this Bench of the Commission.
3. Parties appearing were asked whether they wanted to file any document in support of their contentions or lead any evidence. They stated that they did not want to lead any evidence or file any document, however, it was contended by the Deputy Registrar that the complainant relies upon the complaint and the Annexures attached thereto in which the brief facts are stated for the cancellation of the registration of the unions.
4. The facts disclosed in the complaint are that the five of the Industrywise Trade Unions listed in Annexures ' A' were registered with the Commission for the establishment of Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation Limited having its offices at Karachi, Lahore and Islamabad and further that besides the Industrywise Trade Unions registered with the Commission were other than seven unions registered whose area is confined to the Province of Sindh were registered with Registrar, Trade Unions, Sindh at Karachi.
5. It is stated in the complaint that one of the trade union namely People's Workers' Union Pakistan Steel shown as respondent No, 1 made an application on 14-3-1992 before this Commission under section 22(2) of the I.R.O., 1969 for determination of C.B.A. For Pakistan Steel as the term of sitting C.B.A. Which was not Industrywise Trade Union and, was registered with Registrar, Trade Unions, Sindh had expired on 12-3-1992 and that upon the receipt of said application under section 22(2) a list of total workmen employed by the Pakistan Steel Mills was sent for from the management, the respondent No, 13 vide Letter No, 2(6)/92, dated 15-3-1992 to ascertain the maintainability of the application under section 22(2).
6. That in the meanwhile the Director, Registrar, Trade Unions, Sindh sent a letter dated 24-3-1992 informing the Commission that four trade unions registered with R.T.U. Sindh had applied for determination of C.B.A. Of the Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation Ltd. And he accordingly issued notices to all the unions including the respondent No, 1 Pakistan Steel People's Workers' Union which had applied to the Commission for determination of the Collective Bargaining Agent for participation in the proceedings.
7. That it was further stated that on the receipt of notices all the existing trade unions except respondent No, 1 were ready to participate in the secret ballot to be held by R.T.U., Sindh maintaining that C.B.A. Was to be determined by N.I.R.C. Only though the said respondent No, 1 Pakistan Steel People's Workers' Union had earlier participated in the referendum held in 1992 withdrawing its application under section 22(2) of the I.R.O., 1969 from the Commission. It was requested by the R.T.U., Sindh that either the said application may be proceeded immediately or no objection be given to him to hold secret ballot as the majority of the workers employed in Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation Ltd. And the unions were in the Province of Sindh.
8. On the receipt of reference received from R.T.U., Sindh Dr. Munir Ahmad Mughal, the then learned R.T.U. Had decided to hear Industrywise and non-Industrywise Trade Unions on 21-4-1992 before passing any order on the said reference.
9. On 21-4-1992 the United Workers Front (respondent No, 6) i,e, local trade union registered with R.T.U., Sindh, which was then functioning as C.B.A. Raised preliminary objection to the maintainability of the application under section 22(2) of the I.R.O., 1969 relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Sindh in Writ Petition No, S-33/90 in which Pakistan Steel was held to be one establishment and the said objector further contended that without certification under section 22- EE of the I.R.O., 1969 the Commission could not hear the said application.
10. The then learned R.T.U. Dr. Munir Ahmad Mughal relying upon W.P. No, S-33/90 upheld the objections raised by United Workers Front holding that the learned R.T.U., Sindh was competent to decide the matter as all the offices of Pakistan Steel Mills located in Pakistan were held to be one establishment and, therefore, the learned R.I.T.U. Had no jurisdiction in the matter and he also held that all the trade unions registered with the N.I.R.C. Were registered in violation of the provisions of I.R.O., 1969 and, therefore, he directed that a complaint be filed before the Commission for the cancellation of the registration of all the unions registered with the N.I.R.C.
11. The learned Chairman, N.I.R.C. Vide his order dated 2-8-1992 assigned the said case to the Member of the Commission sitting at Karachi for disposal according to law.
12. On behalf of respondent No, 1 it is contended:--
(a) that merely on the recommendations of the Member of Commission the Registrar cannot pass an order under section 10(1) of the I.R.O., 1969;
(b) he further submitted that petition is not maintainable as there is no material warranting the cancellation of the registration of the union, therefore, the complaint may be dismissed;
(c) it is further contended by him that the complaint was also not maintainable as the same has been filed incompetently through Deputy Registrar of this Commission and that it was Registrar, Industrywise Trade Unions who was the competent Authority to lodge the complaint himself before the Labour Court or Bench of the Commission and he could neither authorise nor delegate his authority to any person to act on his behalf;
(d) it is also pointed out that the prayer was beyond the scope of section 10 of the I.R.O., 1969 and, therefore, the learned R.I.T.U. Had misconstrued the law and has seriously erred in filing the complaint for cancellation of the union;
(e) it is also contended that the complaint also was not tenable under the provisions of the Regulation, 1973 and the provisions of I.R.O., 1969 relating to the registration of Trade Unions (Industry wise);
(f) and that the judgment in W.P. No, S.33/90 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Sindh is inapplicable to the facts of this case.
13. The respondent No, 5 (Paslu) has also submitted their objections in writing in which they maintained that their union was registered with the Commission in the year 1978 after due scrutiny and compliance of legal requirements as contemplated by the provisions of sections 5 to 8 and the certificate of registration was issued under section 9 of the I.R.O., 1969. It is submitted that the registration of a union can only be cancelled if there has been violation of any provisions of sub- clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of clause (1) of section 10 of the I.R.O., 1969 and not otherwise and that nowhere it has been shown as to under what provisions of I.R.O., 1969 the registration by N.I.R.C. Was illegal or violative of any law.
14. The respondent No, 6 have submitted as under in their comments dated 15-5-1994:--
(a) that respondent No, 6 i,e, United Workers Front of Pakistan Steel (C.B.A.) is not interested in cancellation of the registration of the unions registered by the Registrar of Industrywise Trade Unions;
(b) the said union was interested in holding of referendum for the determination of Collective Bargaining Agent through the Registrar of Trade Unions, Government of Sindh, Karachi.
15. I have heard the parties at length and perused the complaint and the orders relied upon and filed with the complaint.
16. The main basis for the cancellation of the registration of Industrywise Trade Unions is the order dated 26-2-1992 of the then learned Member/R.I.T.U. And the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Sindh passed in W.P. . No,S.33/90.
17. That in the operative part of the order dated 26-2-1992 of the learned Member/R.I.T.U.
Recommending the cancellation of registration of Industrywise Trade Unions is reproduced as hereinunder: "I have given due consideration to the valuable arguments of all the parties and am not in a position to go against the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Sindh, Karachi given in Constitution petition of S-33 of 1990. The result is that Pakistan Steel Mills is one establishment having its Head Office in Karachi in Sindh and it is the learned Registrar, Trade Unions, Sindh who has got the jurisdiction to hold the referendum. The unions registered by the R.I.T.U. Of this Commission in the light of the Constitution Petition S-33 of 1990, could not be so registered and have been registered in contravention of the provisions of the I.R.O., 1969. As such I am lodging a complaint in writing to the honourable Full Bench of this Commission for a direction to cancel them under section 10 of the I.R.O., 1969. It is clarified that any agreement, settlement, compromise entered between the industrywise trade unions and the employer shall remain in force which was in force prior to this order."
18. That I have perused the judgment passed in W.P. No, S-33/90 passed by his lordship the learned Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court of Sindh passed on 19-4-1990.
19. The Petition No, S.33/90 was filed by respondent No, 1 Pakistan Steel People's Workers' Union against Registrar, Trade Unions and others. The petitioner in the said petition had claimed following reliefs: "(i) Declare and hold that all impugned acts and omissions committed and imputed proceedings held relating to the referendum for elections of C.B.A. And the imputed referendum held on 13th March, 1990, in the establishment of respondent No, 4 and the impugned certificate of C.B.A., issued by respondent No, 1 in favour of respondent No, 5 was without jurisdiction, without any lawful authority and illegal and of no legal effect and this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the same;
(ii) direct the respondent No, 3 who is the competent Authority in law to hold referendum in the establishment of respondent No,14 to elect C.B.A. In accordance with law;
(iii) declare that respondent No,5 is not C.B.A. Of Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation Limited i,e, the respondent No,4;
(iv) grant ad interim relief pending disposal of main petition as per attached application;
(v) award costs.
(vi) any other relief as circumstances may warrant and this Hon'ble Court may deem fit."
20. Mr. Iqbal Haider the learned counsel for the petitioner raised the following contentions before the Hon'ble High Court of Sindh in the said petition at the time of hearing:
(i) The referendum was held in violation of law.
(ii) The application made on 28-2-1990 by the respondent No,5 union was premature and could not have been entertained inasmuch as the period of two years commenced from 28-2-1988 had by that time not expired.
(iii) The respondent No,1 did not hold any inquiry that the unions which had applied, had one-third members or not."
21. While Mr. Obaidur Rehman the learned counsel for United Bankers Front of Pakistan Steel raised following contentions:
(i) The respondent No,4 is one establishment within the meaning of section 2(a) of the Ordinance.
(ii) N.I.R.C. Can hold referendum amongst industry-wise trade unions, federation of such unions and federations at national level under section 22-A(8)(e) read with Regulations 16, 21 and 22 of N.I.R.C. Regulations.
(iii) The petitioner-union cannot object to the holding of referendum after having acquiesced and having participated in the referendum.
(iv) List of voters cannot be questioned after the referendum was held.
22. On behalf of Government of Sindh it was contended that R.T.U., Sindh had the jurisdiction to hold referendum in the Pakistan Steel. The conclusion reached by the learned Judge in Writ Petition No,S-33/90 is as under and I quote: "In the result I am of the opinion that the reasons stated in the judgment, suffer from want of jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the petitioner-union has not been able to point out that the Registrar of Trade Unions had acted in contravention of any statutory provision. There is, therefore, no substance in this petition. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs."
23. It has not been pointed out to me that the Hon'ble High Court had ordered that the registration of the industrywise Trade Unions registered with the Commission was illegal or violative of the provisions of I.R.O., 1969 and or that the same may be cancelled.
24. It is worthy to note that for the cancellation of registration of the union, the provisions of section 10 of the I.R.O., 1969 are very clear. The same read as under:-- "Section 10. Cancellation of Registration.--(i) 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 had--
(i) contravened or had been registered in contravention of any of the provisions of the Ordinance or the rules; or
(ii) 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;
(iv) omitted by the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act (XVI of 1975).
(2) Where any person who is disqualified under section 7-A from being, an officer of a trade union is elected as an officer of a registered trade union the registration of that trade union shall be cancelled if the Labour Court, upon a complaint in writing made in this behalf by the Registrar, so directs.
(3) The registration of a trade union shall be cancelled by the Registrar, if, after holding such inquiry as he deems fit, he finds that such trade union has dissolved itself or has ceased to exist."
25. The bare reading of the said section would show that the cancellation of the said union could only take place if there is violation of provisions of said section i,e,--
(a) if said union violates any provisions of rules of I.R.O. Or has been registered in contravention of I.R.O. Or rules;
(b) union contravenes any of the provisions of its constitution;
(c) the constitution of the union is inconsistent with Ordinance or the rules of I.R.O., 1969;
(d) if any person is certified to be disqualified as office-bearer of the said union etc., or
(e) where the union had dissolved itself, or
(f) if it has ceased to exist.
26. After the registration of union and issuance of registration certificate, the union, acquires a valuable vested right. The cancellation of registration of a union can only be done, after due notice, enquiry and full hearing given to the affected party.
27. It is submitted that no material had been produced or submitted before me that any show- cause notice was issued to the respective unions before filing of the complaint under section 10(1) of the I.R.O., 1969. It is well-settled law that in all proceedings by whomsoever whether judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative, the principles of natural justice have to be observed if the proceedings are likely to result in consequence affecting "The person or property or other rights of the parties concerned". This rule applies even though there may be no positive words in the statute or legal document whereby the power is vested to take such proceedings. In such cases this requirement is to be implied into it as the minimum requirement of justice and fairness. In the absence of any express words in the enactment giving such power excluding the application of the principles of natural justice, the Courts of law are inclined generally to imply that power so given is coupled with a duty to act in accordance with such principles of natural justice as may be applicable in the facts and circumstances of a given case. Only clear language will be interpreted as conferring a power to exclude operation of rule of Audi alter partum, where a public functionary is not required to act judicially but only to hold such inquiry as he considers ' appropriate, but if he had been acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, he must give opportunity of hearing to the affected person. The Registrar of Industrywise Trade Unions is supposed to be acting at least in a quasi-judicial capacity.
28. I am afraid in the present case, no material has been placed before me to prove that affected trade unions were given due show-cause notice with grounds and facts by the R.I.T.U. For hearing before filing of the complaint under section 10 of the I.R.O., 1969 for cancellation of their registration.
' For the reasons stated above I am of the opinion that the present complaint is incompetent and not maintainable at law and the same merits to be dismissed, and that same is hereby rejected.
' Announced in open Court, this 11th day of April, 1995.
Complaint rejected. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.