1976 PLP 155 (PLC)

‑‑-S. 21 read with S. 10‑Trade Union‑Cancellation of registration Trade Union failing to submit annual return by prescribed date and Registrar making complaint to Labour Court for cancellation of its regis tration‑General Secretary of Union in his statement before Labour Court admitting non‑submission of requisite return and Court accord ingly ordering cancellation of Union's registration on that account Representative of Union pleading before Tribunal that return was actually submitted but same apparently did not reach Registrar and that General Secretary at time of making statement before Labour Court was not aware of fact‑Order of Labour Court set aside in circumstances of case. Nazir Ahmad Naz for Appellant. Respondent in person. Date of hearing: 30th May 1974. This is an appeal against the order dated 11‑5‑74 of the Registrar, Trade Unions, Multan Region, Multan cancelling the registration of the appellant‑Union on the direction of the Labour Court No. 2, dated 19‑10‑73.

2. The appellant‑Union was registered on 20‑11‑

72. Since the return for the year ending 31‑12‑72 was not submitted by the appellant‑Union by the 30th April 1973, the Registrar, Trade Unions, Multan Region, Multan made a complaint to Labour Court No. 2 for a direction that the registration of the Union be cancelled. The learned Labour Court on 19‑10‑73 recorded the statement of Mehrul‑Hassan Sahrai, General Secretary of the appellant‑Union, who admitted that the requisite return had not been submitted because the Union had not completed its one year till 31‑12‑72.1 On the basis of that statement the learned Labour Court issued direction to the Registrar to cancel the registration of the Union.

3. The learned representative of the appellant‑Union contended that the return for the year ending 31‑12‑72 was in fact submitted on 15‑3‑73 under postal certificate. The postal certificate was shown to me and I was satisfied that the return had been submitted on the date mentioned therein i.e. 15‑3‑

73. It was also contended that a copy of that return was again sent to the Registrar by the registered post on 20‑10‑73, which was received at the office of the Registrar on 22‑10‑

73. Alongwith the return a letter was also sent mentioning that it appeared that the previous return which had been sent had not been received by the Registrar and therefore a duplicate return was being sent. This fact was admitted by the Registrar. Regarding the statement of the General Secretary of the Union made by him before the Labour Court, it was contended that said Secretary when he made that statement, was not aware of the fact that the return had been sent. In view of the above I am satisfied that the return was sent in time but unfortunately it was not received at tae office of the Registrar.

4. I, accordingly accept the appeal and set aside the order of the Registrar dated 11‑5‑74 and the order of the Labour Court dated 19‑10‑73.