ORDER SHEET

Order Sheet

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

C.P. No. D – 5397 of 2013

C.P. No. D – 5454 of 2013

Date	Order with signature of the Judge

Present.

Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar

Mr. Justice Abdul Rasool Memon.

C.P. No. D – 5397 of 2013

1. Katcha Peshi.

2. For hearing of Misc. No1065/2014.

3. For hearing of Misc. No.32905/2013.

C.P. No. D – 5454 of 2013

1. For orders on office objection No.3.

2. For Katcha Peshi.

3. For hearing of Misc. No.33168/2013.

10.02.2014 :

Mr. S. Ehsan Ahmed Karim, advocate for the petitioners in CP.D-5397/13

a/w Bashir Khan, General Secretary of the petitioner.

Mr. S. Shoa-un-Nabi, advocate for petitioner in CP.D-5454/13 a/w Abdul

Rasheed, Joint Secretary of the petitioner.

Mr. M. Rizwan Saeed, advocate for KPT.

Mr. Abdul Jalil Zubedi, AAG.

Mr. Gulfam Nabi Memon, Joint Director Labour.

Syed Farrukh H. Zaidi, Assistant Director Labour.

------------

Muhammad Ali Mazhar, J. This common order will dispose of both the aforesaid petitions. All learned counsel agreed to argue the whole petitions at Katcha Peshi stage.

The case of both the petitioners are that they are registered Trade Unions of Karachi Port Trust. The secret balloting proceedings were initiated by the Registrar Trade Union for the Election of K.P.T. Both the petitioners through their office bearers approached for participation in the secret balloting when for the first time they came to know that the registration of their trade unions have been cancelled by the Registrar Trade Union in the year 2006 under Section 12(3)(iv) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 2002, hence they have assailed the cancellation of their trade unions on the ground that neither any show cause notice was ever issued to them nor any inquiry was conducted which was a mandatory requirement under Section 12 of the IRO 2002.

In both the petitions the Registrar Trade Union has filed the comments in which it is stated that the petitioners have no locus-standi to challenge the cancellation of their trade unions which was made in the year 2006. The main reason for the cancellation is that the petitioners had secured less than 15% of the polled votes, hence their registration was cancelled.

Learned counsel for the petitioners have vehemently argued that in past not a single show cause was ever issued nor any inquiry was conducted and even the orders were passed without hearing the petitioners which is a sheer violation of the principle of natural justice. On 24.01.2014 specific directions were issued to the Registrar Trade Union who was present in Court to file the relevant documents including the cancellation letter, show cause notice, if any issued to the petitioners Unions before the cancellation of their registrations. However, along-with the comments neither any show cause notice is attached which was ever issued to the petitioners nor any inquiry proceedings are attached. Mr. Gulfam Nabi Memon, Joint Director Labour, the representative of the Registrar Trade Union submits that he traced out the record, but nothing is available to show that before cancellation of the Union any inquiry was conducted by the then Registrar or any show cause notice was issued.

We have gone through the Section 12 of IRO 2002, in which the action was taken against the petitioners. Section 12 pertains to the cancellation of registration through two modes, one is the cancellation by the Labour Court if so directs upon a complaint in writing made by the Registrar Trade Union. Simultaneously, under sub-Section (3) certain powers have been given to the Registrar for cancellation, if, after holding inquiry he finds that any trade union has dissolved itself or has ceased to exist. Under clause (iv) the ground for cancellation which has been invoked by the Registrar in the present case is securing less than 15% of polled votes per final list of voters, during a referendum for the determination of collective bargaining agent. Though these powers were given to the Registrar Trade Union for cancellation, but it were to be exercised only after holding an inquiry which means the proper application of mind and providing an opportunity to the concerned Unions as well, so that a proper order may be passed which has not been done in this case.

Learned counsel for the management also submits that being an employer no information regarding cancellation has been received so the management was totally ignorant about the cancellation of the Trade Union registration of the petitioners.

Learned A.A.G. though not controverted the legal position, but he submits that the petitioners have also failed to approach the Registrar Trade Union for the redressal of their grievance and even they have not filed their returns. The question of filing of returns is totally different than the cancellation, but the core issue before us is whether the cancellation was made in accordance with law or not and we are of the firm view that while cancelling the registration of the Trade Unions, the Registrar Trade Union has not followed sub-Section (3) in which the holding of inquiry was necessary and it is an admitted fact that no inquiry has been conducted nor any show cause notice was ever issued to the petitioners.

For the foregoing reasons both the petitions are admitted to regular hearing and disposed of with the directions that the letter dated 19.06.2006 issued for the cancellation of Karachi Port Trust Employees Union registration and another letter dated 22.06.2006 issued for the cancellation of registration of the Organization of Karachi Port Trust Workers union both are set aside. However, the Registrar Trade Union is at liberty to take action, if any, in accordance with law. Listed applications are also disposed off.

J U D G E

Ndm