Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. MN‑607 of 1977/Punjab, decided on 3rd August 1978.

‑‑‑ S. 10(1)(iii) read with Ss. 67, 1(a) & (2)(a), Trade Unions Act (XVI of 1926) and Vest Pakistan Trade Unions Ordinance (V of 1968), S. 55 Act XVI of 1926 repealed by Ordinance V of 1968 and Ordinance V of 1968 repealed by Ordinance XXVIII of 1969‑Section 67(2)(a) of Ordinance XXIII of 1969 saving every Trade Union registered under any such law and existing immediately before commencement of Ordinance and deeming same to be registered under Ordinance XXIII of 1969, original constitution submitted by appellant Union under Act XVI of 1976, held, deemed to be in force until altered or rescinded‑Section 10(1)(iii) of Ordinance of 1969, held further, comes into play only when Trade Union makes any provision inconsistent with such Ordinance or rules after its registration and no such allegation having been made complaint not competent.

Naeem Sultan Butt for Appellant.

Khalid Nasir, Deputy Director, Labour for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 3rd August 1978.

This is an appeal against the decision dated 21‑8‑1977 of Punjab Labour Court No. 8, Multan given under section 11 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.

2. The appellant‑Union was registered on 29‑10‑1963 under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. The Registrar on 15‑4‑1977 made a complaint before the Labour Court under section 10(L)(W) of Industrial' Relations Ordinance, 1969 for the cancellation of the registration of the appellant Union because its constitution was deficient in the following respects :‑‑

(i) That the procedure for expressing want of confidence in any officer of the Trade Union has not been given as required under section 7(i)(k) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.

(ii) That the contribution has been shown per annum whereas it should have been per month as is evident from rule 4(4) of the Punjab Industrial Relations Rules, 1973.

(iii) In Article 12 a reference has been made to Trade Unions Act which has since been repealed.

(iv) The purposes for which the general funds of the Union shall be applicable have not been mentioned as required under section 7(i)(c) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.

3. The learned Labour Court accepted the complaint and passed an order for the cancellation of the registration of the appellant‑Union.

4. Aggrieved by the above decision, Workers Union Colony Woollen Mills Limited, appellant has preferred this appeal.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the constitu tion of the Union, which was submitted at the time of its registration was in accordance with the provisions of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and its constitution was saved and shall continue to be in force until altered or rescinded.

6. The Trade Unions Act, 1926 was repealed by section 55 of W. P. Trade Unions Ordinance, V of 1968. Subsection (2) of section 55 reads as under

Notwithstanding the repeal of this Act‑-----

(a) Every Trade Union existing at the time of the coming into force of this Ordinance, which was required under the said Act, shall be deemed to be registered under this Ordinance and its rules shall, so far as the same are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, continue in force until altered or rescinded.

(b)---------------------------------------------------------

7. Vide section 67(1)(d) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, the W. P. Trade Unions Ordinance, 1968 was repealed. Section 67(2)(a). of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 provides that every Trade Union existing immediately before the commencement of this Ordinance, which was registered under any such law shall be deemed to be registered under this Ordinance and its constitution shall continue in force until altered or rescinded.

8. From the above, it is clear that the original constitution submitted by the appellant‑Union under Trade Unions Act, 1926 at the time o its registration shall even now be deemed to be in force until altered or rescinded. 1n other words, the constitution of the appellant‑Union has been saved.

9. Moreover, section 10(1)(iii) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 only comes into play when the Trade Union, after having been registered, makes any provision, which is inconsistent with this Ordinance or the rules. There is no such allegation by the respondent that the appellant Union, after its registration, had made any provision, which was inconsistent with this Ordinance or the rules. Therefore, the complaint under section 10(1)(iii) was in any case not competent.

10. The case of the respondent was to the effect that the constitution of the appellant‑Union already framed contravened the provisions of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and, therefore, it was rightly ordered to be deregistered. This contention has no force, because of what has been mentioned above, the original constitution of the appellant‑Union shall even now be deemed to be in force until altered or rescinded by the Union itself.

11. In any case in view of section 9 of Industrial Relations Ordi nance, 1969 when once a Trade Union has been registered, it is a conclusive proof that the Union has been duly registered under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Therefore, its Constitution cannot now be changed.

12. I, accordingly, accept the appeal, set aside the decision of the Lahour Court and dismiss the complaint filed by the respondent.

Complaint dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.