clr/1983/1983_3_495.pdf

(1983)said section 22 and regulation 16 of the Trade Union Regulations, 1968, refused the registration applied for and, also, directed the holding of new elections. Hence these recourses in which the issues for adjudication were: (

1. a)Whether the provisions of section 22* of the Trade 5 Unions Law, 1965 (Law 71/65) were mandatory; (
2. b)whether regulation 16**of the Trade Unions Regulations, 1968 was ultra vires s.22 of Law 71/65; (
3. c)whether the Registrar could direct the holding of new elections. 10 Held, that the provisions of section 22 of the Trade Unions Law, 1965 (Law 71/65) are mandatory and leave no margin for discretion whatever to the respondent Registrar of Trade Unions; that, on the contrary, regulation 16 clothes the Registrar with discretion which means that the Registrar registers 15 the change if he is satisfied that the change was effected according to the Constitution of the Trade Union concerned; that if a reconciliation between section 22 and regulation 16 is not possible the regulation which is subordinate to the section must give way, as the regulation may itself be called in question 20 as being ultra vires the Law; that section 22 and regulation 16 cannot be reconciled and so the regulation must give way to the section; and that, therefore, section 22 of Law 71/65 prevails as regulation 16 is ultra vires the Act in so far as it confers discretion on the respondent Registrar to register the 25 change of officers.

(2)That there is no law conferring on the respondent Registrar the right to direct the holding of new elections. Sub judice decisions annulled. Cases referred to: 30 POED v. Registrar of Trade Unions

(1982)3 C.L.R.177; Queen v. Registrar of Friendly Societies [1871-1872] VII Q.B.741 at p.747; * Section 22 is quoted in full at pp. 505-506 post. ** Regulation 16 is quoted in full at p. 506 post. 496 3 C.',.R. Komodromos andOthers v. Registrar Trade Unions Croxford v. Universal Insurance Co.[1936] 2 K.B.253 at p.281; Ex parte Davies [1872] Ch. App.526 at p.529; R. v. Judge of City oj London Court [1892] I Q.B.273; King Emperor v. Bensari Lai Sarma

(1945)L.R.72 I.A. 57 at pp. 70, 71; 5 Kanaris v. Tosoun

(1969)1 C.L.R.637 at p.

1. Recourses. Recourses against the decision of the respondent whereby he refused registration of the change of names in respect of the 10 "Committee of Management " of P.O.E.D. and for the holding of new elections. P. Angelides, for applicants in Case No. 462/
2. Chr. Pourgourides, for applicants in Case No. 486/
3. A. Markides with A. Haviaras and Chr. Hji Anastassiou for applicants in CasesNos. 500/81, 83/82 and 84/
4. 15 M. Kyprianou, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for all respondents. A. S. Angelides withA. Agrotisffor allinterestedparties. Cur. adv. vult. 20 LORIS J. read the following judgment. These five recourses, which present common legal issues, were on the application of all concerned heard together. / 25 The uncontested facts of all these cases, may be very briefly thus summarized : . The Pancyprian Organisation of Greek School-masters known as POED) has long ago been registered as a trade union under the law and it is still so registered pursuant to the provisions of Law 71/65 as amended by Law 22/
5. The various bodies, organs e.t.c. of the Organisation, 30 as well as the mode of their elections, functions e.t.c, 4?7 Loris J. Kontodromos and Others v. Registrar Trade Unions

(1983)are set out in theconstitutionof theOrganisation which is exh. *Z' before me (filed in Case No. 500/81). On 28/5/81 elections were held in all 7sections of the union (covering the 6 districts -theNicosia District being sub-divided in two sections, the one covering exclusively Morphou area) with a twofold object : 5

1. a)the election of the District Union Committees comprising of five members each;
2. b)the election of General Representatives (the number of which varied from section to section being depended on 10 the number of the union members of each section as envisaged by article 11.1 of the union constitution - exh. 'Z' ) who would later meet pursuant to the provisions of article 11.4 of the union constitution and elect the "Committee of Management" for all sections of POED, 15 whose term of office expires two years after 28/5/81 when new electionswillhave tobeheld as envisaged by theunion constitution (exh. 7). Thus the ballot list of each section of the union was divided into two parts: One part included the names of the 20 candidates for theDistrictCommitteesof theunion(5candidates for each rival group and on occasions "isolated independent contestants") and the other part included candidates for the election of General Representatives, the number of which varied from section to section for the reason stated earlier on 25 in the present judgment; thus, for example, in the case of Nicosia Sectiontherewere 49candidates for eachoneof thetwo rival groups, as far as General Representatives were concerned, (vide exh. "AA" filed in case No. 500/71) whilst in thecase of Paphos Section the number of candidates - in connection with 30 General Representatives - for each one of the three rival groups was only 11.(Videexh. "Α-Γ" filed in case No.500/81) TheGeneralRepresentatives electedon28/5/81 meton 28/6/81 and elected, pursuant to article 11.4 of the union constitution, the "Committee of Management'*of all sections ofPOED. The 35 results of bothelections were promptlycommunicated,pursuant to the provisions of s. 22 of the Trade Unions Law 1965 (Law No. 71/65) , to the respondent Registrar, who was 498 3 C.L.R. Komodromos and Others v. Registrar Trade Unions Lorfs J. furnished with the prescribed fee and was requested to register theresultingfrom thesaidelectionchangeofofficers,asenvisaged by s. 22 of Law 71/65. 1 The respondent Registrar addressed on 21/12/81 a letter, to 5 the newly elected Secretary General of POED (one of the applicants in Recourse No. 500/81) announcing his decision: (
3. a)torefuse registration ofthechangeofofficers inrespect of the "Committee of Management", and (
4. b)the holding of new elections. 10 Similar letterswereaddressed by therespondent Registrar on 2/12/81tothe District SecretariesofNicosia, Limassol,Famagusta and Paphos branches of the union, elected on 28/5/81. By these letters the respective District Secretaries were likewise informed ofthedecisionoftherespondent: 15 (
5. a)torefuse registration ofthechangeof officers, brought about by the results of the election held on 28/5/81 in the respective districts and (
6. b)for the holding of new elections in the respective districts. 20 25 Hence the present proceedings: 1. On 4.12.1981 the newly elected District Committee of POED Famagusta, and/or newly elected members in the said Branch Committee representing the majority thereof,filedRecourse No. 462/81 impugning the aforesaid decision of the respondent dated 2.12.1981; the sub-judice decision in this recourse is marked exh. 1, and appears in the relevant file. , 2. On 18.12.1981 the elected on 28.5.1981 District Committee of POED Limassol, filed Recourse No. 486/81 30 attacking the decision of therespondent Registrardated 2.12.1981; the sub judice decision in this recourse is marked exh. 2 in the relevant file. 35 3. On 23.12.1981 the newly elected Central Committee of the Organisation, the "Committee of Management", filed RecourseNo. 500/81bymeansofwhichtherelevant decision of the respondent Registrar is being impugned; 499 Loris J. 4. Komodromos and Others t. Registrar Trade Unions

(1983)the sub judice decision in this recourse is appended to it and it is marked exh. "A". / On 15.2.1982 the newly elected District Committee of POED Paphos, and/or 4 out of the 5 members of the District Union Committee filed recourse No. 83/82 attacking the aforesaid decision of the respondent which is marked exh. "A" which is filed in the relevant file. 5 5. On 15.2.1982 the newly elected Committeeof the Nicosia Section of POED (which does not include Morphou Section) and/or the majority of members thereof on 10 its behalf, filed Recourse No. 84/82 attacking the aforesaid decision of the respondent; the sub judice decision dated 2.12.1981 is marked exh. "A" and appears in the file in question. (1 shall have the opportunity of referring to these subjudice 15 decisions of respondent when examining their nature and effect at a subsequent stage of my present judgment.) On 20/1/82 the District Committee of POED Limassol who already filed Recourse No. 486/81, filed an application for the issue of a provisional order staying 20 (

1. a)the decision of the respondent Registrar for holding new elections; (
2. b)the decision of the respondent Registrar "directing the previous executive committee to take office and proceed with elections", pending the determination of the recourse for annulment. 25 On 23/12/81 together with the main recourse under No. 500/82, the Central Committee of POED, the "Committee of Management", filed a similar application for the issue of a provisional order staying same parts of the subjudice decision 30 pending the final determination of this recourse. The respondent Registrar filed opposition to both aforesaid applications, which were heard together, on the application of both sides. 500 3 C.L.R. Komodromos and Others v. Registrar Trade Unions Loris J. The decision of this Court on the aforesaid applications was pronounced on 25/2/82 (Vide POED v. The Registrar of Trade Unions

(1982)3 C.L.R. 177). After this decision counsel for the parties proceeded to file 5 written addresses asdirected by theCourt;before thecompletion of the filing of written addresses, on 29/5/82 two applications werefiled ineach one of the present recourses, the one on behalf of 13 applicants, former officers of POED who took over the management of the Organisation after the refusal of the respon10 dent Registrar to register the newly elected committees, and the other on behalf of 21 members of POED who have applied to the Registrar attacking the results of the elections on 28/5/81 in three districts. Applicants in both these applications were praying for an order of the Court granting to them leave to 15 intervene in all five recourses as interested parties. On 11/6/82 with the consent of all applicarts and respondent in the five recourses, applicants in both aforesaid applications were granted leave to intervene and thus all interested parties filed opposition to each one of the recourses and counsel on 20 their behalf filed written addresses as directed. Finally on 26/11/82 whenallrecourses werefixed for clarification and evidence some more documents were produced as exhibits and some more witnesses were heard and counsel of allconcerned had the opportunity of clarifying and supplemen25 ting their written addresses, viva voce. I shall now proceed to examine the subjudice decisions of the respondent Registrar dated 2/12/81 which appear in each one of the five recourses and are marked as aforesaid. With slight variations IDeach, in particular as regards the 30 addressees of the letters containing the subjudice decisions, all five letters-decisions are substantially identical and they may be sub-divided into two parts. In the first part the Registrar in quite clear and unequivocal words refuses registration of thechangeof officers brought about bytheresultsof the 35 elections held on 28/5/81 for the reasons stated therein; in the secondpartofhisdecision whichisconstituted oftwo paragraghs the respondent quite vaguely indicates that new elections should be held and invoking the opinion of the Attorney-General of 501 Loris J. Komodromos and Others v. Registrar Trade Unions

(1983)the Republic on a similar occasion,asheputs it,states that such elections will be carried out by the old Committee of Management. In this respect I feel that I should repeat what I have stated when giving the decision on the application for a provisional order: "Whilst the latter parts (of the decision) referred to above have been on both occasions expressed with some equivocation, it was the stand taken throughout by the respondent that this latter statement of his, contained in the aforesaid exhibits, were part and parcel of his decision". 5 Asthere isno lawconferring on the respondent Registrar 10 the right to direct the holding of newelections that part of his decision which so directed, was flagrantly illegalandoughtto have been, as in fact was, suspended by the provisional order given on 25/2/82;nowthat Iam dealingwith themerits ofthese recourses I adopt my aforesaid decision and its reasoning 15 which must be considered as forming part ofmy present judgment. Having dealt with the second part of the subjudice decision of the respondent which is in effect covered by my decision given in the applications for provisional order, I shall now 20 proceed toexamine themain issuewhichfalls fordetermination, notably the refusal of the Registrar to register the change of officers when promptly requested to do so pursuant to the provisions of s. 22 of the Trade Unions Law 71/65. In all the subjudice decisions the respondent Registrar says 25 clearly that such registration cannot beeffected according to s. 22 of the Trade Unions Law 1965 (Law No. 71/65) and regulation 16of the Trade Union Regulations of 1968 because the change of officers was not made pursuant to the provisions of the trade union constitution: and respondent proceeds to 30 explain(A)inhisdecision incaseNo. 500/81that the General Representatives elected on 28/6/81 were irregularly elected as (

1. i)at the elections of 28/5/81 held in the Districts of Paphos, Limassol, Famagusta and Nicosia persons voted who were not entitled so to do as they werenot 35 members of the Union. (
2. ii)At the Nicosia District elections, the number of representatives elected was greater than the number provided by article 18(
3. a)of the Union Constitution. 502 3 CX.R. Komodromos and Others v. Registrar Trade Unions Loris J. (B) In hisdecision in all the remaining cases the persons who voted were not entitled so to do. All applicants in all recourses pray for the annulment of the subjudice decisions and their main contention is to the effect 5 thattheprovisionsofs. 22oftheTrade UnionsLaw (LawNo. 71/65) are mandatory and the respondent Registrar had no other alternative but to register thechange of officers onreceipt of the relevant application accompanied bythe prescribed fees. The provisions of regulation 16of theTradeUnion Regulations 10 1968 - they maintain -insofar astheyallowadiscretion inthis respect to the Registrar are ultra vires the enabling law. Counsel for respondent submitted, interalia, that theRegistrar has a discretion both under s. 22 of Law 71/65 and under regulation 16of the Trade UnionRegulationswhich according 15 to his submission is intra vires; the Registrar ofTradeUnions, counsel emphasised, is the watch-dog of legality in theTrade Unions and as such he cannot be deprived of descretion thus becoming a rubber stamp. Therefore, he maintained the law must bereasonablyconstrued so as to enable him to exercise 20 a discretion; construing the law in a different way - counsel continued - would lead to absurdity. All interested parties in their opposition raised certain preliminary objections which boil down to an averment that all present recourses are not justiciable. 25 All these objections as elaborated by leadingcounsel of the interested parties are based on the following line of thought: (
4. i)The subjudice decisions form part of a composite administrative act or decision. 30 35 (
5. ii)The final act of the composite decision isthe decision of the respondent Registrar to the effect that the elections held in at least 4 districts were irregular, therefore void. This decision -the final one - was never impugned by a recourse. (iii) The other composite administrative decisions lost their executory character in view of the final decision. (
6. iv)The non-registrationof the changes is only theresult of the main decision"(being that the elections were irregular-voidandthereforeannulledbytheRegistrar). 503 Loris J. Komodromos and Others v. Registrar Trade Unions

(1983)(v) The applicants having been elected irregularlyillegally - do not have existing legitimate interest in the sense of Article 146.2 of the Constitution. As the objections raised by the interested parties go to the jurisdiction I feel bound to examine them first. 1 hold the view that the whole problem should beexamined inthe following sequence : 5 Are the provisions of s. 22 of law 71/65, under which the respondent Registrar was called to act mandatory? If the answer is in the affirmative, that would be the end of 10 the matter; he should have registered the change of officers; as no other alternative would be opened to him. If the answer was in the negative and the respondent had a discretion the next thing which heought to have examined was the extent of such discretion. 15 Could the respondent for instancedecide toannulthe results of the elections? As at present advised I do not think so. That would be within the province of a competemt Court; as Mellor J. said in a case very similar to the one in hand, thecase of The Queen v. TheRegistrarof FriendlySocieties 20 [1871-1872J VII Q.B. 741 at p. 747: "We should not bedoing right ifwecompelled the Registrar to prefer one of the contending parties to the other by registering them, when two sets of persons are shewn to be claiming to represent the same society. The Court of 25 Chancery is more adapted to settle such a dispute; ..." Could then the Registrar order the holding of newelections? 1have already held that definitely he could not do such a thing as he had no such right under the law. Perhaps the only course open to the Registrar, assuming 30 'always that he had a discretion, was the refusal to register the change of officers coupled with an indication to those concerned to apply to the appropriate Court for redress What did the Registrar do in these cases?

1. He assumed that he had a discretion and hedecided in 35 the first place to refuse the registration of the change of 504 3 C.L.R. Komodromos and Others v. Registrar Trade Unions Loris.J. officers. I am not deciding this point now. 1 shall consider it and pronounce on it after disposing of the preliminary objections raised by the interested parties who have intervened with the leave of the Court. 5 ]0 15 20 25
2. Heproceeded to decide on the holding of new elections; even he went as far as indicating the body who would have conducted same; now we are also informed by leading counsel appearing for the interested parties that the Registrar decided the annulment of the results of the elections as well; it is true that I could not trace such an express decision of the respondent in any one of the sub judice decisions. If the submission is that such a decision must be presumed by necessary implication I shall confine myself in saying that it was not within the competence of the respondent to take such an adminis­ trative decision in the same way it was not open to him to decide for the holding of new elections, a decision which 1 have already declared flagrantly illegal. ' So assuming that the respondent Registrar had a discretion under s.22 of law 71/65 the only decision within hiscompetence would have been a refusal to register; all other decisions could not have been taken by the respondent; they were not within his competence. For all the above reasons the preliminary objections raised by the leading counsel appearing for the interested parties are doomed to failure and they are accordingly dismissed. Now ί shall proceed to examine the last and most important issue i.e. the refusal of the respondent Registrar to register the change of officers, (a change which resulted from the elections) 30 pursuant to the provisions of s.22 of Law 71/
3. Section 22 of the Trade Unions Law 1965 (Law No. 71/65) reads as follows: 35 "
4. Γϊδσα άλλα/ή αξιωματούχων ή τοϋ τίτλου τινός έξ αυτών κοινοποιείται δια τής αναρτήσεως τής σχετικής γνωστοποιήσεως είς περίοπτον μέρος της εγγεγραμμένης έδρας και παντός γραφείου παραρτήματος έκαστης εγγε­ γραμμένης συντεχνίας, εντός δεκατεσσάρων δέ ήμερων άπό • της αλλαγής ή τοιαύτη γυωστοποίησις αποστέλλεται ύπό 505 Loris J. Komodromos and Others v. Registrar Trade Unions

(1983)της συντεχνίας ομού μετά των νενομισμένων τελών εϊς του "Εφορον, δστις και εγγράφει ταύτην". ("

1. Notice of all changes of officers or of the title of any officer shall be prominetly exhibited in the registered head office and any branch offices of every registered trade union, and shall, within fourteen days of the change, be sent to the Registrar by such trade union, together with the prescribed fee, and shall be registered by him")· 5 The Trade Unions Regulations 1968, made pursuant to s. 58 of law 71/65 were published in the Cyprus Gazette under No. 10 681 dated 25/9/68 (vide Supp. No. 3 Not: 673). Regulation 16 reads as follows : "
2. Γνωστοποίησις περί οιασδήποτε αλλαγής αξιωματούχων ή τίτλου οιουδήποτεαξιωματούχου εγγεγραμμένης συντεχνίας ή παραρτήματος αυτής αποστέλλεται είς τον "Εφορον είς 15 διπλούν ύπό τού Γραμματέως της συντεχνίας, δέον δε να είναι έν τ φ Τύπω Άρ. 12 έν τ φ Πρώτω Πίνακι και περιλαμβάνη τα έν αύτφ εκτιθέμενα στοιχεία. 'Εάν ίκανοποιηθη δτι ή αλλαγή έπηνέχθη συμφώνως προς τό καταστατικόν της συντεχνίας, ό "Εφορος εγγράφει τήν άλλαγήν καΐ έπι- 20 στρέφει τό £ν άντίγραφον είς τόν Γραμματέα, σημειωμένον δια τής λέξεως 'ενεγράφη' καΐ ΰπογεγραμμένον ύπ' αυτού". ("Notice of any change of officers or of the title of any officer of a registered trade union or any of its branches is sent by its secretary to the Registrar in duplicate, and 25 must be as in form 12 of the first Schedule and must include the particulars shown therein. If he is satisfied that the change was effected in accordance with the Regulations of the trade unior, the Registrar registers the change and returns one of the copies to the Secretary, noted by the 30 word 'registered' and signed by him"). Applicants in the present recourses, maintain as aforesaid, that s. 22 of Law 71/65 quoted verbatim in Greek above, is of a mandatory character owingto its wordingwhilst regulation 16of the TradeUnions Regulations1968(whichwas madeunder 35 &58

(1)of the law by the Council of Ministers "for the better carrying of this law into effect") owing to its wording gives discretion to the Registrar of Trade Unions and is thus in direct 506 3 C.L.R. Komodromos and Others v. Registrar Trade Unions Loris J. conflict with the law; regulation 16, they submit, is therefore ultra vires. Counsel for respondent submits (and counsel for the interested parties supports this submission) that s. 22 of Law 71/65 must 5 be reasonably construed, considering the law as a whole so as to give the Registrar of Trade Unions a discretion enabling him to carry out hisduties as the watch-dog of legality in the Trade Unions. In such a case - counsel maintained there would have been no conflict with regulation 16 which is 10 "intra vires"; a different interpretation of the law would lead to absurdity. The first thing 1 have to consider is whether the words of s.22 of Law 71/65 are clear and unambiguous because as Scott L.J. said in Croxford v. Universal Insurance Co.., [1936] 2 K.B. 15 253 at p. 281: "Where the words of an Act of Parliament are clear, there is no room for applying any ofthe principlesof interpretation, which are merely presumptions in cases of ambiguity in the Statute". 20 After ascertaining the nature of the words employed in the lawI havetoexamine likewisethe wordsemployed in regulation 16. In the case of a conflict between the rule and the section of the law, I have to examine whether reconciliation of the two 25 is possible; if not, the subordinate provision must give way and the rules would be regarded as subordinate to the section, as the rules may themselves be called in question as being ultra vires the law. As James L.J. said in Ex parte Davies [1872] Ch. App. 526 at p. 529 : 30 "If theact is plain,the rule must be interpreted so as to be reconciled with it, or, if it cannot be reconciled, the rule must give way to the plain terms of the Act. " In R. v. Judge of City of London Court [1892] I Q.B. 273 it was held that, 35 "if the words of an Act are clear, you must follow them, even though they lead to a manifest absurdity. The Court has nothing to do with the question whether the Legislature has committed an absurdity" (Per Lord Esher at p. 290). 507 Loris J. Komodromos and Others v. Registrar Trade Unions

(1983)The same principle was enunciated by the Privy Council in the case of KingEmperorv.Bensari Lai Sarma [1945] L.R.72 LA. 57 at pp. 70, 71, where Viscount Simon L.C.in delivering the advice of their Lordships said: "their Lordships feel bound to point out that the question 5 whether the Ordinance is intra vires or ultra vires does not depend on conditions of jurisprudence or of policy. It depends simply on examining the language of the Government of India Act and of comparing the legislative authority conferred on the Governor-General with the 10 provisions of the Ordinance by which he is purporting to exercise that authority_ Again and again this Board has insisted that in construing enacted words we are not concerned with the policy involved or with the result, injurious or otherwise, which may follow from giving 15 effect to the language used". Reverting now to s.22 of Law 71/65 , I must say that the words therein used are more than clear and free from any equivocation; the Greek words "όστις και εγγράφει ταύτην" definitely means "who shall register same"; 1haver't 20 got the slightest doubt in my mind about this and I feel that thereis noneedtoresort toany Greek dictionary or other aid in order to ascertain it. Therefore the effect of this section is mandatory and leaves no margin for discretion whatever to the respondent Registrar. 25 On the contrary regulation 16 clothes the Registrar with di­ scretion: '"Εάν Ικανοποιηθη ότι ή αλλαγήέπηνέχθη ονμφώνως προς τό καταστατικόντης συντεχνίας, ό "Εφορος εγγράφει τήν άλλαγήν--.", which means that the Registrar registers the change if he is satisfied thatthechange was effected according 30 to the constitution of the Trade Union concerned. I cannot see how s.22 of Law 71/65 and regulation 16 of the Trade Unions Regulations 1968 can be reconciled in thatrespect;in effect they are quite1repugnantas the regulation purportsto amend s. 22 of the law by conferring a discretion 35 on the Registrar, which is beingdenied to him by the Statute. According to the authorities cited above the regulationbeing subordinate to the section "must give way to plain terms of the Act", (s.22 of Law 71/65). 508 3 C.L.R. Komodromos and Others \. Registrar Trade Unions Loris J. Thus s.22 of Law 71/65 prevails as r. 16 of the Trade Unions Law is "ultra vires" the Act in so far as it confers discretion on the respondent Registrar to register the change of officers. 5 10 15 Concluding on this last issue I feel that I should repeat what was stated by our Supreme Court in the case of Loizos Kanaris v. Osman Tosoun

(1969)1C.L.R. 637 at p. 643: "...the wordscannot beconstrued, contrary to their meaning as embracing or excluding cases merely because no good reason appears why they should beexcluded or embraced. However unjust, arbitrary or inconvenient the meaning conveyed may be, it must receive its full effect. When once the meaning isplain, it is not the province of a Court to scan its wisdom or its policy. Its duty is not to make the law reasonable, but to expand it as it stands, according to the real sense of the words... " Under the circumstances 1 do not think that I should proceed to pronounce on the remaining legal grounds advanced in the relevant applications. 20 For all the above reasons all 5 sub judice decisions should be annulled. In the result the sub judice decisions in all the above five recourses are hereby declared null and void and of no effect whatever. 25 Having given the matter my bestconsideration I have decided to make no order as to costs. Sub judice decisions annulled. No order as to costs. 509