Bombay High Court

Mukand Iron & Steel Works Ltd. vs V.G. Deshpande Registrar Of Trade 1986:Equivalent
citations: 1987 (1) BomCR 286, 1986 (52) FLR 367, (1986) IILLJ 290 Bom
Bench: S Bharucha
Facts

On 11th August, 1983 the Additional Registrar of Trade Unions informed the Rashtriya
Mukand Employee's Union (the 2nd respondent that he had on 10th August, 1983 cancelled
its registration on the ground that it had contravened the provisions of Section 28 of the
Trade Union Act by failing to send an annual return

Mukand Iron & Steel Works Ltd., (the petitioners) have a factory at Kalwe in the district of
Thane. The 2nd respondent was the recognised trade union representing workmen at the
Kalwe factory. The 2nd respondent was until 10th August, 1983 registered as a trade union
under the provisions of the Trade Unions Act,

On 11th August, 1983 the Additional Registrar informed the 2nd respondent that he had
cancelled its registration on the ground that, after due notice from the Registrar, it had
continued wilfully to contravene the provisions of S. 28 of the Act and Rule 17 of the
Bombay Trade Unions Regulations in that it had failed to send to the Registrar by the
prescribed date the annual general statement of accounts in the prescribed annual return
form for the year ending 31st December, 1981, which was required under the said section to
be sent annually to the Registrar.
It is the case of the 2nd respondent that the notice referred to in the letter dated 11th August,
1983 had not been received by it for it was operating from premises other than the address
registered with the Registrar.
On 17th August, 1984 the 2nd respondent wrote to the Registrar, enclosing the annual return
of for the year ended 31st December, 1981, and requested him to "withdraw the cancellation
letter".
On 17th August 1984 the 2nd respondent wrote to the Registrar stating that audit for the year
1982 was in progress and expressing the hope that it would be in a position file the annual
returns for the year 1982 by 25th August, 1984. The letter requested condonation of delay.
On 18th August, 1984 the Registrar wrote to the 2nd respondent thus : "with reference to y
our letters dated 17-8-84 and 18-8-84 together with the Annual Returns of your union for the
year ending 31st December 1981 and 1982 requesting for the restoration of the registration
of your union, I have to state that this office letter No. CL/TUA/1181/Cancellation/By-II-D/
7108 dated 11-8-83 is hereby withdrawn as the Union has complied with provisions of Trade
Unions Act, 1926, by submitting the necessary annual returns."
issue

The only question that I have to consider in this petition is whether the Registrar had the
power to withdraw the cancellation of the registration.

Ratio
* In the first place, it must be noted that the Registrar purported to withdraw the cancellation
not because prior notice of such cancellation had not been served on the 2nd respondent, as
Mr. Deshmukh strenuously argued, but, in terms, because it had, subsequent to the
cancellation, submitted the annual returns. The order withdrawing the cancellation was,
therefore, in no sense an order made to correct an abuse. In the second place, the 2nd
respondent had a remedy against the order in that it could appeal there against or apply for
fresh registration. The order was, therefore, in no sense necessary exbedito justitiae. Thirdly,
the order was passed relying upon events that had occurred subsequent to the cancellation.
* Mr. Deshmukh pointed out that the cancellation had been intimated to the 2nd respondent
on 11th August, 1983 by the Additional Registrar of Trade Unions while the withdrawal of
the cancellation had been effected by the Registrar of Trade Unions. He pointed out that
under Section 3(2) the Additional Registrar discharged the powers and functions of the
Registrar under the superintendence and direction of the Registrar. In Mr. Deshmukh's
submission, the order of withdrawal dated 18th August 1984 was passed by the Registrar in
exercise of his power of superintendence. A bare reading of the letter dated 18th August 1984
makes it clear that it was passed not in exercise of any powers of superintendence but
because the 2nd respondent had by then filed the annual returns.
* Mr. Deshmukh said that the cancellation that had been effected on 10th August, 1983 had
been effected only by drawing a line across the entry relating to the 2nd respondent in the
register maintained by the Registrar. The registration certificate of the 2nd respondent
remained with it and was conclusive evidence of registration under Section 9. By virtue of
Section 10, no cancellation could be effected except in the manner thereunder prescribed. In
Mr. Deshmukh's submission, there had, therefore, been no valid cancellation of the 2nd
respondent's registration.
* The validity of the cancellation is not in issue here. I must proceed in this petition upon the
basis that the 2nd respondent's registration was validly cancelled.
*Mr. Deshmukh's last submission was that the court's discretionary power under Article 226
should not be exercised in favour of the petitioners because the cancellation of the 2nd
respondent's registration had been effected without following the prescribed procedure, in
that it had not been addressed the notice that is a pre-condition of deregistration at its then
address. It appears that this address had not been communicated to the Registrar as is
required by the said Act to be entered in the register, but that some communications from the
Registrar had been addressed to the 2nd respondent at this address.

Judgement
Where a party is aggrieved by an order of cancellation, and I assume the 2nd respondent was
so aggrieved, it has remedies in the form of an appeal and in the form of an application for
fresh registration. The 2nd respondent has not invoked these remedies. It cannot then be said
that the powers under Section 226 should not be exercised because the cancellation of the 2nd
respondent's registration had been effected improperly.
Then, to sum up, the Registrar cancels or withdraws the registration of a trade union, it has
the option to appeal or to apply for fresh registration. If the appeal succeeds the order of
cancellation or withdrawal of recognition could be held to be bad ab initio and the trade union
would continue on the register as if that order has not been passed. If a fresh registration is
permitted it would operate from the date thereof. Once the Registrar cancels or withdraws the
registration of a trade union he had no power left qua that order. He has no power to review
it. He certainly has no power to withdraw it because of subsequent events.
In the result, the petition must succeed and it is made absolute in terms of prayer