Find a Lawyer

‑‑‑Ss. 10‑A & 21‑‑Trade Union‑‑Registration, cancellation of‑‑Petitioner Union failing to submit accounts and not holding elections for past four years‑‑Labour Court cancelling registration of union after due consideration of arguments of its counsel‑‑Mala fide on part of Registrar in moving application for cancellation not proved‑‑Petitioner failing to submit accounts and hold elections and explanation submitted therefore, not believed by Labour Court‑‑Petitioners as such guilty of breach of provisions of S. 21, Industrial Relations Ordinance‑‑Order of Labour Court cancelling registration maintained in circumstances.

Salahuddin for Petitioner.

Date of hearing: 16th April, 1986.

MUHAMMAD ZAHOORUL HAQ, J.‑‑

This petition is directed against the orders passed by the Sind Labour Court No. V, Karachi, dated 12‑1‑1981 and the ultimate orders passed by the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi, on 15‑2‑1981, whereby the registration of the petitioner as trade union was cancelled by the first order and that cancellation was upheld in the second order.

2. The Registrar of Trade Unions had issued notice to the petitioner, dated 20‑11‑1979 calling upon as to why the annual return for the period ending 31‑12‑1977 to 78 were not submitted by the petitioner in time. The petitioner had replied that the accounts books were with the Auditor and they will be submitted when received back. On 12th December, 1979, the Registrar of Trade Unions gave another show‑cause notice to the petitioner that it had failed to submit the annual return for the year ending 31‑12‑1977 and 31‑12‑1978 and, therefore, contravened the provisions of section 21 of the Industrial Relation Ordinance, 1969. Further it was pointed out that no General Body Meeting was held for election of office‑bearers since 12‑8‑1976 which was contravention of clause (22) of the Union's Constitution. The petitioners replied that the accounts have been submitted to their auditors, and in respect of the non‑holding of General Body Meeting reason was that the general situation of the country within the period is well‑known to every one. It was stated under the circumstances unanimous election of office‑bearer is allowed. On 12‑1‑1980, the Registrar of Trade Union applied to the Labour Court under section

10(1) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for cancellation of registration. After notice to the petitioners and after taking into consideration the various circumstances, the Labour Court cancelled the registration of the petitioners on 12‑1‑1981.

3. The petitioners appealed to the Labour Appellate Tribunal and the Labour Tribunal also agreed with the order of the Labour Court and dismissed the appeal of the petitioners, after exhaustively dealing with the points raised by the petitioners.

There were three points raised in this petition by the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Salahuddin. He submitted that the accounts had been submitted on 11‑1‑1980 and that in any case the conditions in the country between 1976 to 1978 were such as it was not possible to hold the elections and that the trade union activities were completely suspended in the country during the Martial Law period or at least the petitioner was under a bona fide impression that no trade union activities were allowed including the election. He further submitted that the Registrar of Trade Union was motivated in moving for any cancellation of registration of the petitioner because the petitioner had filed Constitutional petition in respect of referendums.

4. We have seen the two orders of the Labour Court and Labour Tribunal and we find that every one of the arguments of the petitioner, I counsel have been dealt with in those orders in detail. The question o" mala fide of the Registrar of Trade Union has not been considered as enough of a motive because the petitions had been filed by the petitioners in respect of holding of referendums by Registrar of Trade Union and, therefore, there was no nexus between the two cases. We are of the view that the question of mala fide of the Registrar of Trade Unions in moving the application against the petitioner only in spite of fact that there were other unions who had not submitted their accounts or held the elections is hardly of any consequence, in this matter, because it is the order of the Labour Court and Appellate Tribunal which have been passed against the petitioners and there is no allegations of any mala fide against those officers and, therefore, the mere motive. ' even if any, of the complainant is hardly of any consequence. By this explanation we do not find that the Registrar of Trade Unions had any motive against the petitioners. The Registrar was quite justified in asking for the accounts and insisting upon the holding of election and, therefore, if the Registrar has moved against the petitioners for cancellation of registration after feeling dissatisfied with the explanation of the petitioners then the Registrar cannot be said to be motivated in any manner. Moreover, we agree with the opinion of the two Tribunals below that mere filing of a petition in respondent of referendums does not mean that the petitioners have caused any personal of front to the Registrar which has motivated him to take any unwarranted action. Moreover, it is quite clear that the two Tribunals had come to the conclusion after taking various circumstances into consideration that the petitioners had failed to render accounts for the years ending 31‑12‑1977 and 31‑12‑1978 and also failed to hold annual meeting and further failed to hold elections, is in itself sufficient to show that the Registrar of Trade Unions was not motivated by any mala fide intention against the petitioner.

5. It is an admitted position that the audited account for the year ending 31‑12‑1977 were not presented by the petitioners to the Registrar of Trade Unions till 12‑1‑1980 and further even the account for period ending 31‑12‑1978 were not presented to the Registrar of Trade Unions against till 12‑1‑1980 and, therefore, actually the petitioners had been guilty of the breach of provisions of section 21 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Because the period prescribe for the submission of these accounts was 31^st March, 1978 and 31st March 1979 respectively. The explanation of the petitioners that the accounts were with the Auditor has not been believed by the two tribunals below and they have given reasons for the same with which it is not possible for us to disagree. We do not find that there is any thing wrong in that decision because it has been held that the petitioners have not been able to establish that they had submitted their accounts to the Auditor. In any case if the accounts were prepared, they could be audited in time by another auditor and then they could be presented before Registrar within time prescribed by law. But this was not done.

Similarly, in respect of non‑holding of elections the petition is that paragraph 22 of the Constitution of the petitioners requires the holding of general meeting once a year for the transaction of the business of election of office‑bearers and passing annual report and audited accounts etc. The stand taken by the petitioners that the conditions in the country during 1976 to 1979 were not conducive to the holding of election of their union is hardly to be believed. Particularly, when we know that the things had specified in the last part of 1977. Therefore, their excuse was of no consequence. In any case the conditions in the country had nothing to do with the conditions of this trade union which should have held its elections. Moreover non‑holding of election for four years could not be condoned by any one.

Moreover, the explanation that the Trade Union had been completely banned is again found to be incorrect because M L R 23 which has been reproduced by Vth Labour Court, which had come into force on 19‑9‑1977, had clearly allowed all the trade unions activities and activities of labour associations except strike and lock‑outs. Therefore, even if there was any justification for not holding of the elections before 19‑9‑1977, the position in law had completely changed after that date and hence the petitioner was not justified in not holding the elections thereafter till 1980. Every one is presumed to know law.

Consequently, this petition is found without merits and is hereby dismissed.

M. Y. H. /5092/Lb Petition 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.