' ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA (CHAIRMAN).---This is an appeal against the order of the then Chairman, NIRC, dated 18-6-1998 whereby the registration of the appellant union was cancelled under section 10(3) of I .R . O.
2. Facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant union was registered with this Commission as industrywise trade union on 18-1-1990 and a Registration Certificate No,6 of 1990 was issued to it. It appears that the appellant union after its registration failed to hold its elections and it also did not submit Annual Returns for the years 1990 to 1996. A note was accordingly put up by the Assistant Incharge of the Registration Branch of this Commission on 10-6-1998 stating that the last elections of the union were held on 2-1-1990 and according to rule 10 of the Constitution of the Union, the, tenure of office-bearers being two years, the elections were required to be held before 1-1-1992, 31-12-1994 and 30-12-1996 but no intimation in that behalf was received by the Commission. It was further pointed out in the note of the Assistant Incharge that under section 21 of the I.R.O, every registered trade union is required to submit to this Commission, Annual Returns upto 31st December of every year but the appellant union "has not submitted Annual Returns for the years 1990, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95 and 96, despite notice, dated 25-6-1997 and its reminder dated 15-6-1997, which has been returned with the observations of the Post Office "Left". Moreover, Annual Return for the year 1997 has also become due." This note was marked to the DR(R) who endorsing the said note observed that "It appears that union has ceased to exist and is liable to be cancelled." The matter was placed before the then Chairman/RITU who after perusal of these notes came to the conclusion that the appellant union "has ceased to exist," because it failed to hold elections of its officers as required tiy its constitution and section 7(1)(j) of I.R.O., nor any change of officers was notified to the Commission ever since its registration in the year 1990 and further no Annual Returns were sent to the RITU as required under section 21 of I.R.O., read with Regulation 15 of NIRC (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973. The learned Chairman, therefore, proceeded to cancel the registration of the appellant union under section 10(3) of I.R.O., vide order, dated 18-6-1998 impugned in the present appeal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as also the learned counsel appearing for the respondent management, who appeared at the preliminary hearing on 14-2-2000 and has also entered appearance today. Learned .Counsel for the appellant has contended that the elections of the appellant union were held in the year 1996 and intimation thereof together with a list of office-bearers of the appellant union was also sent to the Commission for approval. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on a letter, dated 25-8-1996 enclosed with the appeal as Annexure-B and the list of office-bearers Annexure-B/1. Learned counsel has made a grievance that the appellant union has not received any intimation from the office of the Commission as to the acceptance or refusal of the change of office-bearers nor was any objection conveyed to it. It is further contended by the learned counsel that alongwith the change of office-bearers, the appellant also submitted the amendments made in certain clauses of the Constitution of the Union. According to the learned counsel, the amendments so made also included the change in the, postal address/registered office of the union. Grievance made by the learned counsel is that before passing the impugned order, no show-cause notice was issued to the appellant union nor any enquiry was held and that the appellant was not given any opportunity to put across its point of view. Learned counsel also sought to argue that the then Chairman of the Commission/RITU had no jurisdiction to cancel the union's registration on the ground that it violated its own Constitution by not holding elections within the, time specified therein or that it contravened some provision of I.R.O., by not submitting Annual Returns. In support of his submissions, learned counsel placed reliance on 1991 PLC 643 and 1997 PLC 315. Learned counsel has further submitted that no communication of the cancellation of the registration was received by the appellant union. According to the learned Counsel, the appellant union came to know the cancellation of its registration only when its representative appeared before the Chairman/RITU on 25-10-1999 in connection with forthcoming referendum being held in the respondent establishment and he was told that the registration of the union had already been cancelled.
4.Mr. Jamil Ahmad Khan, Assistant Incharge, Office of RITU has stated on perusal of the relevant file that the show-cause notice was given to the appellant union on 25-6-1997 on the address mentioned in the union's Constitution. On our query, however, he has admitted that the registered notice was not sent to the appellant union. As the show-cause notice was not sent to the appellant through registered post, no presumption can be raised that it reached the addressee. In any case, the contention of the appellant union is that no notice was served upon it on the changed address which was made available to the office of RITU vide letter, dated 25-8-1996.
5. On perusal of the registration file, we find that a notice, dated 25-6-1997 was sent to the General Secretary of the appellant union stating therein that he has failed to submit Annual Returns for the year ending on 31-12-1996 by 30th April, 1997 and that the Annual Returns for the years 1990 to 1995 were also outstanding. This notice was followed by a reminder, dated 5-7-1997 referring to the previous notice and the failure of the union to submit Annual Returns as required by section 21 of the I.R.O., read with Regulation 15 of NIRC (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973. By this reminder, the appellant union was "required to explain within 10 days of the receipt of this notice why a complaint under section 10 of the I.R.O. 1969 may not be filed for seeking cancellation of your union": The reminder was received back undelivered. Thereafter, as stated above, the matter was placed before the then learned Chairman, on 18-6-1998 who by his impugned order, passed on that date, cancelled the registration of the appellant under section 10(3) of I.R.O.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and examining the record, we are inclined to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that before the impugned order canceling the registration of the appellant union was passed cm 18-6-1998, no show-cause notice was issued to the appellant nor was any enquiry held into the allegations on the basis of which its registration was cancelled. As noted above, only one notice was issued to the appellant on 25-6- 1997 pointing out therein the failure of the union to submit Annual Returns for the years 1990 to 1996 and requiring to submit the Annual Returns in Form-K. This notice could not be said to be a show- cause notice and in any case, it is shown to have been issued almost one year before the impugned order was passed and admittedly it was not sent through registered post. The reminder, dated 15-7-1997 which was in the nature of a show-cause notice was received back undelivered and even otherwise the action taken (cancellation of registration under section 10(3) of I.R.O.) was not in consonance with what was said in the reminder show-cause notice viz filing of complaint seeking cancellation of registration. Nor only that, the reminder in question, too, was issued almost a year before the passing of the impugned order. We also find that no enquiry was held into the allegations made against the appellant union and the then learned Chairman appears to have passed the impugned order on the basis of the aforementioned notes recorded on the file by the subordinate officials.
7. In the circumstances, the impugned order of the learned Chairman/RITU cancelling the registration of the appellant union is liable to be set aside on the short ground that it was passed in the absence of the appellant and without issuing any show-cause notice to it with the result that no opportunity was afforded to the appellant to rebut the allegations made against it. Needless to observe that the law is fairly well-settled that before taking any adverse action against any person, he should be given reasonable opportunity of being heard to rebut/defend the allegations made against him. It may pertinently be stated that the learned counsel appearing for the management has not opposed this appeal stating that the management has no objection if the impugned order is set aside and the registration of the appellant union is restored.
8. In view of what has been said above, this appeal is allowed, the impugned order of then learned Chairman/RITU cancelling the registration of the appellant union is set aside and the registration of the appellant is restored. We would like to make it clear that this order will not preclude the office to initiate fresh proceedings for cancellation of the registration of the appellant union in accordance with law. It may be stated that this appeal was accepted by a short order of even date restoring the registration of the appellant union but leaving it open to initiate fresh proceedings for cancellation of its registration in accordance with law and by this judgment, the reasons for the short order have been supplied.
9. Before parting with this case, we would like to observe that in view of the order that we have passed, we have not considered it necessary to go into the factual controversy, as to whether the appellant union had been holding its election regularly and sending result thereof and the Annual Returns to the Commission. Similarly, we have also not considered it necessary to determine the further question as to whether the then Chairman/RITU could himself cancel the registration of the appellant union or he should have moved the Labour Court with a written complaint seeking cancellation of the union's registration. 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.