1997 PLP 315 (PLC)

In the para-wise comments submitted on behalf of the Registrar it is not denied that the cancellation order of respondent No. 2 Union was signed by the then Registrar of Trade Union on 6‑11‑1995, but it is stated that the same was never conveyed to the respondent No.

2. The action appears to have been taken by the Registrar on the basis of the show‑cause notice issued to respondent No. 2 on 11‑6‑1979, alleging that it had failed to hold annual‑ election of the office‑bearers and Managing Committee Members as per clause 13 of the Constitution and also failed to submit, annual return for the years 1973 to 1978 under rule 10 of the Industrial Relations (Sindh) Rules, 1973, read with section 21 of the I.R.O., 1969. The Registrar having received no reply to this show‑cause notice, order for cancellation of the registration was passed. Under subsection (1) of section 10 of the I. R.O. the registration of a Trade Union can be cancelled by the Labour Court alone upon a written complaint by the Registrar that the trade union has‑‑ "(i)??????? contravened or has been registered in contravention of any of the ??? provisions of this Ordinance or the rules; or (ii)??????? contravened any of the provisions of its constitution; or (iii)?????? made in its Constitution any provision which is inconsistent with this Ordinance or the rules." Under subsection (3) of section 10 the Registrar is also vested with the power of cancellation of the registration of a trade union if after inquiry "he finds that such trade union has dissolved itself or has ceased to exist." Here, it is apparent from the show‑cause notice issued to the respondent No. 2 that it was charged with the contravention of the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance and the rules made thereunder and the contravention of its constitution, covered under clauses (i) and (ii) of subsection (1) of section 10, referred to above and, therefore, the Labour Court alone, on the complaint of the Registrar, could have exercised the power of cancellation of the registration of respondent No.

2. Moreover, admittedly although orders for cancellation of the registration of respondent No. 2 had been passed, but the same was never? conveyed to respondent No.

2. This being so the respondent No. 2 was clearly deprived of the opportunity to challenge the order of cancellation passed by the Registrar before the Labour Court under section 11(b) of the I.R.O. Accordingly, in view of the fact that the cancellation order was never conveyed to the respondent No. 2 and also that the respondent No. 2 by reason of such omission was deprived of a valuable right of appeal, the order of the Registrar, even if otherwise competently passed cannot be considered a valid order. In the above circumstances I find no merit in this Constitution petition, which is dismissed in limine.

2. In view of the above order this application has become infructuous and is dismissed. A.A./K‑30/K?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Petition dismissed.