1976 PLP 597 (PLC)

This is an appeal under section 11 of the I. R.-O. filed by the Union against the order of the Labour Court No. VI, Hyderabad directing the cancellation of the registration of the Union on the complaint filed by the Registrar of Trade Unions, Hyderabad.

2. Some of the employees of Tando Adam Municipal Committee formed a Union known as 'Municipal Workers' Union, Tando Adam' and it was registered on 19-2-1970 but it was not a `Collective Bargaining Agent' as it had lost in referendum held between this Union and another Union of the employees known as 'People's Municipal Employees' Union. Tando Adam'. The referendum was held on 10-1-1974. The President of the appellant-Union was Abu while the General S4-cratary was Haji Khan Behan and both were outsider as they were not employees of the Municipality.

3. The Administrator of the Municipality suspended Ahmed Khan, Assistant Octroi Superintendent, who was the cousin of the General Secretary and another person Muhammad Khan, Naka Munshi, Joint Secretary of the Union. The Administrator also threatened to take action against the President of the Union for the recovery of the municipal dues. Consequently, a grievance arose against the Administrator and threats were issued.

4. On 11th April 1975 a meeting of the aforesaid Union was held and it was decided to stage a strike with effect from 17-4-1975. A telegram was received by the Administrator from the President of the Union that the sanitary secretary has been abusing and harassing the sweepers. On the same day at 11-00 p.m. the Administrator received an information that the President of the Union was inciting the workers to stage illegal strike. On this infor mation he recorded the statements of some persons and informed the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner. A report was also sent to the Incharge of the Police Station with copies to Deputy Commissioner Superintendent of Police, Additional Director Labour and Labour Officer, Mirpur Khas.

5. On 17-4-1975, 86 workers out of 214 went on illegal strike. How ever, by the evening of 18th the number was reduced to

43. The strikers gathered outside the Municipal Office and started slogans against the municipal authorities. They also started quarrelling with the workers who had declined to join them. The Police took action and arrested several workers.

6. On 17-4-1975 the Administrator sent a telegram to the Assistant Director Labour (Conciliation), Mirpur Khas and other authorities. On 18-4-1975, Additional Director Labour, Hyderabad sent a show-cause notice to the respondent-Union and deputed Mr. Hamid All Baloch, Assistant Director (Conciliation), Mirpur Khas to make spot enquiry. Statements of several persons, including President of the Union, were recorded. On 19-4-1975 the Assistant Director made a report to the Additional Director Labour, Hyderabad. On 19-4-1975 the President of the Union alongwith two others were challaned while Haji Khan Behan was shown as absconder. On 27-4-1975 the Union sent reply to the show-cause notice. On 28-4-1975 the application under section 10 was made to the Labour Court for cancella tion of the registration of the Union.

7. The Union resisted the application and filed a written statement denying that any strike was staged or any other step was taken in violation of law.

8. Evidence was tendered by both the parties. On the assessment of the evidence the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the workers had staged an illegal strike on the basis of the resolution which was passed JA by the union and therefore, passed the impugned order directing the cancellation of the registration of the Union. Aggrieved by this the present[ appeal had been filed.

9. On perusal of the record and proceedings and hearing the arguments I see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Labour Court. There is ample evidence on record to establish that the Union pas:e d the resolution calling upon the workers to stage an illegal strike and as result B of that resolution some of the workers went on strike and became untruly. Some of them were arrested and chailaned. The evidence of the Administrator as well as the Assistant Director, who was deputed tol hold the enquiry and actually found the workers on strike, supports it. It is further, borne out by the statement of Abu, who was the President of the Union, recorded by the Assistant Director. Abu, who appeared as a witness on behalf of the Union denied that there was any strike but his denial cannot be accepted in view of his statement recorded by the Assistant Director during the course of the enquiry. Of course at first in the cross-examination he denied that he had made any such statement or it bore his signature but subsequently he admitted that the Assistant Director recorded a statement when he was in jail. Not only this but even in the reply, which was sent by the Union to the show-cause notice it was clearly admitted that the workers bad resorted to strike to protest against the injustice of the Administrator.

10. With regard to the statement of Abu recorded by the Assistant Director and the reply of the Union to the show-cause notice it was urged by the learned counsel for the Union that these documents could not be taken into consideration as the witness was not confronted. There is no force in this contention as I have already pointed out that Abu was specifically questioned in the cross-examination with regard to the statement recorded by the Assistant Director and at first he denied but later he admitted. When the attention of the learned counsel was drawn to this fact he attempted to urge, that it was obtained under coercion as Abu was in jail. Indeed Abu was in jail when the statement was recorded but there is not an iota of evidence that the statement was obtained under coercion. Even Abu himself did not make any such allegation. So far the reply is concerned it was brought on record and none of the witnesses appearing on behalf of the Union disowned the tr reply which bears the signature of Abu. As the original statement recorded by the Assistant Director was not on record of the Lower Court I directed the Representative of the Registrar of Trade Unions to produce the Statement in order to compare the signature. Statement was produced and on comparison it is clear to me that the signature of Abu on the statement recorded by the Assistant Director is actually the same as the signature on the reply. So it cannot be said that this is a forged document as the reply was not received from the Union.

11. In the circumstances I find no force in the appeal and it is, therefore, dismissed.