2008 PLP 36 (PLC)

The petition is restored and by consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. The petitioner Union is aggrieved by the registration of the respondent No.2 as an Industry-wise Trade Union by the respondent No.1. The petitioner are a trade union of Seamen registered with the Registrar Trade Unions, Sindh, whereas the respondent No.2 applied for registration as an Industry-Wise Trade Union of Seamen before the respondent No.1. While the aforesaid respondent might be so qualified to be registered, it is not necessary to go into this question as the petitioner have simply relied upon the procedure followed and the competence of the officers on the basis of whose findings Registration Certificate was granted to the respondent No.2. It appears that after receiving, the respondent No.2, application the Chairman of respondent No.1, assigns the matter to the learned Member, NIRC sitting at the Karachi: Bench. However, subsequently, perhaps different directions were given by the Chairman and a Deputy Registrar of the respondent No.1 was directed to examine the matter. The aforesaid Deputy Registrar conducted an elaborate enquiry and made his recommendations spread over seven pages suggesting that the respondent No.2 be so registered in terms of a note dated 18-11-1999. Apparently the note was forwarded to the Chairman through the Registrar, who simply signified his approval by writing "as proposed" on the same day. Mr. Muhammad Tasneem, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that while registration of Industry-wise Trade Union was a function of the respondent No. 1 in terms of section 22A(8)(d) of the' Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, under section 22B(2)(b) the functions of the Commission were to be performed by at least one or more members. The contention appears to be correct, furthermore, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the decision was taken without hearing the petitioner. This was seriously controverted by Mr. Shafiq Qureshi, learned counsel for the respondent No.2, who asserted that a proper hearing was afforded to the petitioner by the Deputy Registrar before submitting his report. Indeed learned counsel may be right but we are clearly to the view that when the law requires ac, particular person or functionary to perform a statutory duty and that too after hearing of parties, a decision could only have been taken by the Chairman or any other Member constituting the Bench after hearing the parties. Mr. Qureshi attempted to refer to section 13 of the I.F.O., 1969 to content that the Registrar, Trade Unions could delegate the functions to his subordinate functionaries. The argument is totally misconceived. Section 13 relates to the functions of the Registrar Trade Unions, who is a separate entity from the NIRC. As far as the latter is' concerned, section 22B(3)(b) of the Ordinance stipulates that in relations to Industry-wise Trade Unions any reference to a Registrar shall be deemed to be a reference to the appropriate Bench of the Commission to which such functions are assigned, therefore, no delegation of the functions to any other person is permissible. For the foregoing reasons, we would allow the petition holding the registration of respondent No.2 to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. H.B.T./P-19/K Petition allowed.