This is a revision application under section 38(3-a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1.969, against the order, dated 30-10-1997, passed in Appeal No. 2 of 1996 under section 11 (b) of the I.R.O., 1969, whereby the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No.5 at Karachi maintained the order, (fated 25-11-1996, passed by respondent No.l (Registrar of Trade Unions) cancelling the registration of the applicant trade union namely the Precision Rubber Products Workers' Union.
2. Mr. Ashraf Rizvi, learned counsel for .the applicant, in support of the revision, raised the following pleas:- -
(1) The applicants were condemned unheard, as no notice of hearing was received by the applicant from the respondent No. 1.
(2) That the union, notwithstanding the resignation of nearly all the workers and dismissal of 5/6 workers, still exists.
(3) The alleged closure of the factory is illegal without obtaining are order under Standing Order 11-A of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968.
(4) The management should not have been made party to the proceedings in appeal by the learned Labour Court.
3. Dealing with the first plea, whether any notice for cancellation o1 the union was given or not, the onus to prove, entirely lay on the respondent (Registrar, Trade Unions).
4. Mr. Azar, Joint Director Labour, East Division, representing Registrar, Trade Unions (respondent No.l) submits that on 7-5-1996, the office of the respondent No. l received an application of even date from one Mr. Shabbir Ahmed, Member Managing Committee of Precision Rubber Products Workers' Union (hereinafter referred to as the Workers' Union; whereby it was intimated firstly that the Workers Union has more than 25 %, who are outsiders and secondly the said union failed and neglected to submit the annual return for the last five years as required under section 10 of the I.R.O., 1969. On 8-5-1996, the respondent No.1 sent a letter under registered cover to the President of the Workers' Union Mr. Muhammad Ali for furnishing comments on the contents of the said application. As this letter issued by the Registrar, remained un-replied, on 6-6-1996, a reminder of the same was sent under registered cover requesting again to furnish .his comments alongwith the relevant record, stating clearly that if he failed to submit the same, it would be assumed that the contents of the sail: application were true. On 16-6-1996, a reply was received from, the Preside-- of the Workers' Union, by Which, instead of controverting the allegation::, unfounded allegations were made against the Registrar that it had underhand dealing with the management.
5. In the mean-time, the respondent No.l, received an order, data 18-8-1996 from the learned Member of N.I.R.C. (National Industrial Relations Commission), passed in Case No.4-A (46)/96K whereby it was ordered that an enquiry under section 10 of the I.R.O. be trade against the Workers' Union with a direction that the matter be disposed of within one month after holding due enquiry, with notice to both parties i.e. the management as well as the union. Photocopy of the proceedings initiated by the Workers' Union through its President Mr. Muhammad Ali before the N.I.R.C., have been placed by the respondent No. l on the file of Revision Application No.K105 of 1999 (at pages 157(159). The said order, dated 18-8-1996 passed by the learned Member, N.I.R.C., is reproduced as under:-- Date 18-8-1995.
Mr. Muhammad Ali, President is present for petitioner. Mr.. Muhammad Ghani, Advocate is present for respondents. Arguments heard.
The detailed order shall be passed later on. The provisional certificate of CBA ship pertains to the year 1972 and thereafter no fresh certificate has been obtained from the Registrar of Trade Unions. Under circumstances I am of the view that this is a doubtful certificate therefore, the matter is referred to the Registrar, Trade Unions for enquiry under section 10 of the I.R.O., 1969. In the meanwhile Mr. Muhammad Ali, the President of the Union shall not enter in the factory as already ordered. The matter to be disposed of within one month by the Registrar, Trade Unions after holding due enquiry with notice to both the parties.
The petition at this stage is premature and the same is dismissed."
6. Mr. Azar further submits that the proceedings, which were initiated by the Registrar, after receipt of the application from Mr. Shabbir, Member Managing Committee of the Workers' Union, received a new dimension and impetus as it had the force of an order passed by the learned Member of the N.I.R.C. It was, therefore, obligatory on the part of the Registrar to take up the matter against the Union under the aforementioned order, which, embodied clear direction to the Registrar to proceed under section 10 of I.R.O., 1969. The mode of enquiry was also clearly mentioned by directing the Registrar to involve both the parties in the enquiry. The order also suggested a time frame of one month to complete enquiry. Thus the Registrar held an enquiry after notice to the workers' 'Union and the management calling upon them to produce the record. The said notices were, dated 22-8-1996, captioned as enquiry under section lb of the I.R.O., were duly received by the parties. A number of documents in this regard have been placed on record by the Registrar alongwith their additional comments (at pages. 113--119). It appears that after holding the enquiry, registration of the Workers Union was cancelled by the Registrar,, by his order, dated 25-11-1996.
7. It is manifest from the documentary evidence, placed before the learned Labour Court as well as this Tribunal, that the plea of Mr. Ashraf Rizvi, learned counsel for the applicant, that he was given no notice and condemned unheard, is unfounded.
8. As regards the second plea that the union, notwithstanding the resignation of nearly all the workers and dismissal of 5/6 workers, still exists, does not appeal to reason. Mr. Mahboob Rizvi, representative of the company submitted that there were in all ten office-bearers of the Workers' Union. A list has been filed alongwith the additional legal objection on behalf of the respondent No.2 for the maintainability of the revision application, which is reproduced as under:-- _______________________________________________________________________ Sr. NoName of Office Bearer Post inDate of Resignation Date of UnionTermination/Collection Dismissalof-Legal Dues ________________________________________________________________________
1. Mr. Muhammad Ali, President (Outsider)
2Mr. Shakeel; V. President.Retrenched27-7-1995 (20-7-1995)
3.Mr. M. Shahid, General Secretary Retrenched27-7-1995 (20-7-1995)
4.Mr. Babar Mahmood, Joint(Resigned)22-10-1996 Secretary (21-10-1996)
5Mr. Abdul Haq, TreasurerResigned22-10-1996 (21-10-1996)
6Mr. Shabbir Khan, M.M.CResigned16-5-1995 (15-5-1995)
7Mr. Shahid KhanRetrenched23-7-1995 (20-7-1995)
8Mr. M. Yousuf.Resigned22-10-1995 (23-10-1996)
9.Mr. Abdul WaheedResigned28-10-1996 (27-10-1996)
10Mr. Shahzad IqbalDismissed (26-11-1996)
This list shows that except the President, who is an outsider, almost all the office-bearers have either been retrenched, resigned or dismissed and do not continue in the employment of the company.
9. Admittedly, nearly all the workers of the factory had put in their resignations and 5/6 workers were dismissed and, as such, there was no worker, without which a Union cannot be deemed to exist because the union represents the workers.
10. As regards the third plea that the, alleged closure of the factory is illegal as no order under Standing Order 11-A was obtained, Mr. Mahboob Rizvi, representative of the factory submits that the factory management had made an application under Standing Order 11-A of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 to the Labour Court seeking permission to close down the factory for the reasons stated in the said application. The said application, in view of the fact that nearly all the employees/workers had resigned and collected their, dues and 5/6 workers had been dismissed, according to Mr. Mahboob Rizvi, had become infructuous and as such, it was withdrawn with permission of the Court. Admittedly, the factory was being run on Plot No.48 Sector 2B, Korangi Industrial Area, on a rented premises which was vacated by the-factory management. The learned counsel for the applicant, however, submits that the factory is still in existence and is carrying on its business on another Plot No.24, Sector 2B, Korangi Industrial Area, Karachi. But Mr. Mahboob Rizvi; submits that the Company has closed its manufacturing and is engaged in trading only.
11. The last plea that the management should not have been made party to the proceedings in the Labour Court, the representative of the company submits that since the management of the company was involved in the subject-matter- of enquiry, which were challenged before the Labour Court, an application was filed by the Company, to be made a party. That application was granted on 10-7-1997 by the learned Presiding Officer of Labour Court No.5. This plea, at this stage, is not available to the applicant.
If they were aggrieved of the said order, they could have filed a revision application. I also think that the plea is belated and will bear no fruit.
12. In view of the above discussion, the revision fails, which is dismissed accordingly.
Announced in open Court, this the 19th day of August, 1999 authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.