2000 PLP 111 (PLC)

Ss. 10 & 38(3-a)

Cancellation of Trade Union

Service of notice of cancellation

Proof

Revision petition

Petitioner Labour Union whose registration was cancelled by Registrar, Trade Unions, had alleged that petitioner was condemned unheard as no notice of hearing was issued to petitioner by Registrar, Trade Unions, prior to cancellation of registration

' Onus to prove service of said notice was on Registrar, Trade Unions, but nothing had been produced on record by the Registrar, Trade Unions, to prove service of said notice

Registrar of Trade Unions having failed to discharge his burden, petitioner had rightly contended that he was condemned unheard.

Ss. 10, 11 & 38(3-a)

Revision

Limitation

Revision petition against judgment of Labour Court passed in appeal moved against order of Registrar, Trade Unions, was filed after about five months of date of decision passed in appeal

Revision suffered from laches because at the most three months' time had been considered to be the maximum as proper time by superior Courts for submitting revision petition. Ashraf Rizvi for Applicant. Jehangir Azar J.D.L This is a revision application under section 38(3-a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, against the order, dated 30-10-1997, passed in Appeal No.3 of 1996 under section 11(b) of the I.R.O., 1969, whereby the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No.5, Karachi, maintained the order, dated 26-11-1997, passed by respondent No.1 (Registrar of Trade Unions) cancelling the registration of the applicant trade union namely the Precision Rubber Products Union. (1) The applicants were condemned unheard as no notice of hearing was received by the applicant from the respondent No. 1. (2) That the union, notwithstanding the resignation of nearly all the workers and dismissal of 5/6 workers, still exists. (3) The alleged closure of the factory is illegal without obtaining an order under Standing Order 11-A, of Standing Order Ordinance, 1968.

3. Dealing with the first plea, whether any notice for cancellation of the union was given or not, the onus to prove, entirely lay on the respondent (Registrar, Trade Unions.)

4. Mr. Azar, representing the Registrar, Trade Union, submitted that there were two unions in the management namely (1) The Precision Rubber Products Workers Union, Korangi, Karachi and (2) The Precision Rubber Products Labour Union, Korangi Karachi. The Workers Union was registered in or about 1972 whereas the Labour Union was registered in or about 1995. The Registrar, after registration of the second union (hereinafter referred to as the Labour Union, received a complaint, dated 2-9-1995, addressed to the Registrar by Mr. Muhammad Ali, President Workers Union (CBA) (hereinafter referred to as the Workers Union) making a number of allegations against the Labour Union (Page 95 of the R&P of the Registrar, summoned by this Tribunal). An employees of the Workers Union also lodged a complaint, dated 22nd July, 1996, to the Registrar, Trade Unions stating, inter alia, that some of the office-bearers of the Labour Union are also the office-bearers of the Workers Union including one Muhammad Sabir, the Vice-President of the Labour Union, also a nominated member of the, Workers Union, as nominated by the Works Council. He, therefore, prayed for enquiry under section 10(3) of the I.R.O., 1969, and cancellation of the registration of the Labour Union, issued in 1995. A certified true copy of the list of Worker Union, dated 14-7-1996, was also attached with it.

5. I went through the entire file to find out if there was any notice as required under section 10(3) of I.R.O., 1969, issued to the Labour union, but it was not on record. Mr. Azar submitted that notice was issued to Labour Union as well, but he was not able to point out any letter on record or even place it during these proceedings. I, therefore, find force in the submission of Mr. Ashraf Rizvi that the Labour Union was condemned unheard. But he was heard in appeal by the learned Labour Court.

6. Mr. Mehboob Rizvi, representative of the factory, however, submitted that all the members of the Labour Union have either submitted their resignations or retrenched or dismissed and there is no person in the employment of the factory, which is closed. In fact, an application for closure of the factory was made, under Standing Order 11-A, of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, to the Labour Court seeking permission to close down the factory for the reason stated in the application. But in view of the fact that almost all the workers having resigned, retrenched or dismissed, the said application was withdrawn as the same had become infructuous, with permission of the Court. Admittedly, the factory was being run on plot No.48, Sector No.28, Korangi Industrial Area, Karachi, on a rented premises, which was taken on rent by the factory management. The company is now engaged in trading only on acquiring another plot of land bearing No.24 Sector 28, Korangi Industrial Area, Karachi. It is not at all engaged in manufacturing and is engaged in the trading only. As such, the Labour Union does not exist de fecto as there are no member, no employee and no workman, in the factory. There is no factory in working or factory premises.

7. It is also pertinent to note that there is laches in filing of the revision application. It was filed after about five months of the date of the decision in appeal. At the most, three months' time has been considered to be the maximum, as proper, time by the superior Courts for submitting, the revision applications.

8. In the facts and circumstances noticed above, I do not feel inclined to interfere with the decision of the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No.5, by invoking the jurisdiction, vested in me, under section 38(3-a) of the I.R.O., 1969. The revision application is, therefore, dismissed. H.B.T./330-K/(L.Trib.) Revision dismissed.