1986 PLP 228 (PLC)

7. Mr. Ashraf Rizvi, has contended, that, the Registrar's order of rejection was, without jurisdiction, as all the objections, required to satisfy the Registrar, were satisfactorily made, as found in subsection (2) of section 8, of the I.R.O., and, therefore, there was no reason to reject the registration. In this context, he has referred number of documents, from the file of the Registrar, and the Registrar's representative, Mr. Mir Muhammad Baloch, who has replied to the contentions of Mr. Rizvi, as a controversial point, only to this limited question, when he admits, that, complete membership list was submitted on 22‑11‑1982. But the point, which he has very much stressed, is, that, the objection, regarding 21, out of 30 vacant posts, were concerned, the union, under his letter, dated 15‑8‑1982, also intimated to them, that these posts were to be filled through "Co‑option", of the workers. The union submitted, fist of 20 filled vacancies, by its letter of 16‑9‑1982, which, if is difficult for the Registrar to understand, how the 9 office‑bearers could appoint 21 office‑bearers, in view of the conditions laid down in the Union's constitution.

8. Mr. Rizvi, has drawn, the Court's attention to the representations, made to the Registrar, which is self‑explanatory. And given, complete, background of proceedings.

9. According to him, the union deposited the documents and record, on 15‑8‑1982, and on 16‑9‑1982, 193 membership forms were submitted, in addition to earlier supply of membership forms and on 16‑9‑1982, union also submitted names of remaining office‑bearers. Finally, on 22‑11‑1982, the total membership list was submitted to the Registrar, where he has shown the complete list of 3900 members. Therefore, the controversial point, regarding 193 members, was put, through query, was resolved, by the union, through correspondence, and reminders which Mr. Mir Muhammad Baloch, himself, has acknowledged, that, all the requirements were met except, their inability to understand, how composition of 9 office‑bearers, could appoint 21 office‑bearers, if there is co‑option, as referred by them in the letter. Whereas Mr. Rizvi has contended, that, the co‑option, has been misunderstood, by the letter, referring to the managing committee deliberations, when, there was, no nomination but it was ultimately, taken in the general body meeting, of which, he has referred the minutes book.

10. The Assistant Director, Labour, has, also, very strongly, raised the point, of limitation, arguing the case that if the Registrar found that application was deficient, he shall communicate within period of 15 days and the trade union shall reply, within 15 days. This point of limitation, of course, has not been raised by Mr. Mir Muhammad Baloch, on behalf of the Registrar, but it is a question of law, based on statutory jurisdiction.

11. In the first place, I may mention the dates, as the most relevant, on the point, of limitation, and, whether the Registrar, was competent to reject, the registration, as required, under subsection (2) of section

8. Whether the rejection order, did mention, the reasons, what reasons prevailed, with the Registrar, to reject the application for registration, of the appellant union. 12.First letter is dated 14‑7‑1982, where the Registrar, regarding 1/5th ratio of membership, and the requisition, of the documents, for his satisfaction, namely, the membership list, had desired and, finally, the querry was that out of 30 posts of executive body, the statement produced by the union, was left blank, in the requisite column. This correspondence continued upto 15‑8‑1982, when the union submitted the documents and other record, desirded by Registrar. If the time of 15 days is to be computed, the letter dated 14‑7‑1982, shows, that, 12‑7‑1982, was the date, when the application is, received from the union. If it was received on 12th, section 8 provides, that if Registrar is satisfied, he shall issue the registration certificate. If he is not satisfied, within 15 days, he is to communicate, to the trade union. Now it is not known, when the Registrar was satisfied, and, when, the time limitation, was to start. Obviously the period will start, according to them, when the first wrote, letter of non‑satisfaction, that is, from July 14, if 15 days, were to expire, it means 29th July. If further section 8 is read, it will appear that 15 days time is to start from the date of application. If the Registrar was satisfied, regarding incomplete requirements, 15 days will be required by the Registrar, to intimate, from the date of application, of 12‑7‑1982, and then 15 days time was to be taken by the union to reply, that means, if time expired on 27th July, which was the time, given to the Registrar. If 15 days added more from the union side, the union is to reply on 12th July, 1982, unless the month is 31st. Neither the Registrar, is in the period of limitation, nor the union, in my opinion.

13. Whether this period, is discretionary, or mandatory? In my opinion, this limitation, period, appears to be mandatory, because in subsection (2), it clearly emphasised, that in subsection (1), after, which, subsection (2) follows, the union, if had 15 days time, to comply with the objection, then the Registrar, if found, that the objections were satisfactorily met, he has no other jurisdiction, but to register the trade union, and then follows subsection (3), which, empowers, the Labour Court, to direct, the Registrar to register the trade union, or may dismiss an appeal.

14. The second question will be, whether the compliance made by the union, regarding the submission, of the list of membership, and the remaining office‑bearers, were, on 16‑9‑1982, or much earlier, on 15‑8‑1982, or even, then 15 days from 14‑7‑1982, when Registrar asked the union to satisfy the querry.

15. This is also the point of legal interest, that, if, Registrar has allowed, the last time, upto December 19,‑. 1982, to satisfy the Registrar, regarding membership, whether, this extension of period can override the statutory period of limitation, as emphasised in section 8, regarding the registration. Secondly, whether, the extension even if, allowed, whether appeal is also time‑barred in this Court.

16. The rejection order is passed on 7‑3‑1982, communicated by Assistant Director Labour. Appeal is filed on 3‑9‑1983, in this Court.

17. What subsection (3) of section 8 in its statutory language, provides; in the first place, section 8(2) is to be read with subsection (2) and with subsection (3) of the said provision. Section 3 reads that in case of application has been rejected, or Registrar has delayed the disposal of application, beyond 15 days, as provided in subsection (1) or has not issued Certificate of Registration, within 3 days the trade union may appeal to the Labour Court.

18. With this language of the Act, it finds that the Registrar has passed rejection order, on 7‑3‑1983. And he had to file appeal within 3 days from the date of 16‑9‑1982, when the objections were complied with. If the Registrar was delaying the disposal of application, beyond the period of 15 days, as provided in subsection (1), the appellant union had to come immediately, taking the time limitation of 15 days, from the date of application which it did not avail. So also, after 15th August, 1982, if they complied with the objections, according to them, initially.

19. On either of these premises, the appellant himself, is guilty of laches and his appeal is barred by time. If the appellant union states, that the union's file was missing, if the Act, has provided limitation, it is the union, who was to be conscious of his legal rights and remedies, with due diligence.

20. In the opinion of the Court, the appeal is dismissed, as time‑ barred. A.E. Appeal dismissed.