REGISTRAR, TRADE UNIONS, FAISALABAD Versus ITTEFAQ WORKERS' UNION, KAMALIA SUGAR MILLS

This is a revision reporting that the order dated 13‑11‑1986, passed by the learned Labour Court No.4, Faisalabad, is not sustainable in law.

2. The dispute is about the registration of respondent No.1 union. On 27‑7‑1986 the respondent No.1 union applied to the petitioner for its registration. Two other unions already existed, therefore, respondent No.1 union could successfully request for registration only if its membership was 1/5th or more of the total workers employed in the mills. The employer supplied list of 492 workers the subscription of which had been delivered to the Social Security in order to advance medical aid to them. Initially respondent No.1 union had sent a list of 65 members. When the Registrar raised objection that membership was short of 1/5th whereupon respondent No.1 union sent a supplementary list of 23 more members making the total as 88. Since the strength was still short of 1/5th of the total number of employees, the petitioner rejected the petition. Respondent No.1 union went in appeal in the learned lower Court. The appeal was accepted and the petitioner was directed to re-decide the matter in the same month i.e. September, 1986. The petitioner could not finalize the matter uptq 30th September, 1986 for certain reasons whereupon respondent No.1 went again in appeal. The learned lower Court directed the Registrar to submit report by expediting the matter. The Registrar sent report within the period fixed by the Court against rejecting the application for registration. The respondent thereupon withdrew the said appeal and brought another appeal challenging the rejection of the registration. The present revision arises from the decision of the said appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has not resolved the matter on the basis of list of workers sent by the employer to the Social Security, therefore, that list is no more relevant to the case. This is, however, factually wrong. Respondent No.1 union submitted a list of 399 workers requesting that 105 workers be excluded from the list of 492 workers sent to the Social Security. Out of 105 workers the Registrar has excluded 22 only and holding that since the number of workers was 470 and the total number of members of respondent No.1 union being 88, it fell short by two. The list of workers sent by the employer to the Social Security could not be made the basis because according to the definition of employee given in Social Security Ordinance every person who works for 24 hours in a week becomes entitled to get medical aid. The list of 492, therefore, may be containing the names of those employees who work for 24 hours in a week. There is no cavil between the parties that definition of workman given in section 2 in I.R.O. 1969 only is relevant in cases of registration of Trade Unions, the result being that it is not necessary that only permanent workmen are to be considered but at the same time casual workers cannot be considered as it cannot be said that such persons are actually engaged or employed. Such persons are only put to work when they come ands ask for work and work is available for them. They are not taken on rolls. The criterion to see is whether they are paid the wages of Fridays and other holidays. A temporary employee is entitled to wages of off days but as a casual worker works at his will and at the will of the employer, he is thus not entitled to wages of the days on which he does not work or when the mill is closed. The Registrar had not held inquiry keeping this point in view. The other thing is that the Registrar has not given in his report the particulars of record examined by him. He has also not brought on the record any copy or excerpt of the record perused by him. He knew that his order was appeal-able and appellate Court had to peruse the record on the basis of which the Registrar has formed the opinion. In the absence of such a record it cannot be seen whether the Registrar has perused the record relevant to the point and has reached the correct conclusion. Since the Registrar has come in revision it was all the more necessary for him to bring on the revisional file copies or excerpt of record perused by him in order to justify his grievance that learned lower Appellate Court has issued a wrong direction for registration of respondent No.l union. Even the learned counsel far the petitioner has felt difficulty but has contended himself with the argument that learned lower Appellate Court should have summoned the record from the employer. On the face of it the argument is untenable. The authority whose order is challenged in appeal has to satisfy that he has during the inquiry perused the relevant record. Merely asserting in the report that he has perused the record is not sufficient. The particulars of the record and copies of the same or in the alternative if the record is bulky and not easily movable the excerpts duly attested should have been brought in the file. In view C of defects pointed out above the learned lower appellate Court should have, instead of issuing a direction to register the respondent No.1 union, should have asked the Registrar to make fresh inquiry and record fresh decision.

3. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 union has pointed out that the petitioner has committed contempt of Labour Court No.4, Faisalabad by saying in para 12 of the revision that the impugned order is capricious and mala fide and in ground No. 2 that the impugned order is a product of mind already prejudiced. Learned counsel for the petitioner in answer to the argument of the learned counsel for respondent No.1 has submitted spontaneous and unconditional apology on behalf of himself and the Registrar. He says that no doubt such remarks have been made in the revision petition but not with intention D of committing contempt of learned Labour Court No. 4. The unconditional apology is accepted. It is expected that Registrar would refrain from making such remarks against judicial Courts in future.

4. As a result of discussion made above revision is accepted and modifying the impugned order the matter is remanded to the Registrar for re-decision in the light of observation made above.

A.E. /308/Lb. P

Revision accepted