Delhi District Court
Steel Authority Employees' Union ... vs The Deputy Registrar Of Trade Union ... on 28 November, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI:
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE (SOUTH),
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.
CS No. 435/2010
ID No. 02403C0161552010
1. Steel Authority Employees' Union (SAEU),
(Registered vide Registration No. 2252),
Through its Secretary S.L. Raina.
2. Shri S.L. Raina, S/o late Shri R.K. Raina,
R/o 15/376, Vasundra Colony, Ghaziabad (U.P.)
3. Shri Anand Singh Rawat
S/o late Shri Pan Singh Rawat
R/o D368A, Street No. 14, Laxmi Nagar,
Delhi 110 092.
4. Shri Deep Singh Singh Rawat
S/o Shri S.S. Rawat
R/o A64, Sector12, NOIDA 201 301.
5. Shri Brijesh Kumar S/o late Shri Babu Ram
R/o C248, BETAI, Greater NOIDA, U.P.
Plaintiffs
Versus
1. The Deputy Registrar of Trade Union Delhi,
South District, AWing, First Floor,
Room no. 123, Pushpa Bhawan,
Pushp Vihar, New Delhi 110 052.
CS No. 435/2010 Page No. 1 of 30
2. Steel Authority of India Ltd.,
Ispat Bhawan, Lodi Road,
New Delhi 110 003.
3. The Govt of NCT of Delhi,
Through Secretary Labour,
5, Sham Nath Marg, Delhi 110 054.
4. SAIL Employees Union Corporate Office
K1/19/153, Sangam Vihar,
New Delhi110062.
Defendants
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 13.05.2010
DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 23.11.2011.
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.11.2011
SUIT FOR DECLARATION, PERMANENT AND
MANDATORY INJUNCTION
J U D G M E N T
1. The plaintiffs have filed the present suit for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction on 13.05.2010. They have prayed for declaration for declaring that the plaintiff no. 1 is the duly registered trade union under the provisions of The Trade Union Act, 1926 and the letter dated 30.04.2010 is illegal, null and void and non est. They have also prayed for directing the defendant no. 1, its CS No. 435/2010 Page No. 2 of 30 successors, officers, subordinates etc to withdraw the alleged cancellation order, deregistering the plaintiff no. 1 under the provisions of The Trade Unions Act, 1926 and withdraw all the orders passed consequent thereto. The plaintiffs have further prayed for restraining the defendants, their servants, agents, representatives and successors etc from changing the status and position of the plaintiff no. 1 and other plaintiffs in any manner whatsoever with costs of the suit.
2. Brief facts of the case as set out in the plaint is that the plaintiff no. 1 is a Union registered under the provisions of The Trade Unions Act, 1926 vide registration no. 2252 dated 3.10.1977. The plaintiffs no. 2 to 5 are the office bearers/members of the plaintiff no. 1 and are the employees of Steel Authority of India - defendant no. 2. Present suit has been filed on behalf of plaintiff no. 1 through Mr. S.L. Raina - Secretary of plaintiff no. 1 who has been authorized to institute the present proceedings vide resolution dated 27.04.2010. Plaintiff no. 1 is the recognized and majority union of the employees of defendant no. 2 having about 225 employees as its members. The defendant no. 1 is the statutory body empowered to grant the registration of the Trade Unions under the provisions of The Trade Unions Act, 1926 and has been entrusted with the works and duties of maintaining the industrial harmony and to resolve the industrial disputes arising CS No. 435/2010 Page No. 3 of 30 between the union or the workman/employee and the management. Defendant no. 2 is a public sector undertaking and the employer of the members of plaintiff no. 1. Defendant no. 3 is the office of government controlling and regulating the functioning of defendant no. 1.
3. It is stated that Mr. Raj Solanki had been occupying the office of the Secretary of plaintiff no. 1 from 14.10.2001 to 24.02.2010 and he had been replaced from the said post of Secretary by passing a resolution by the Executive Committee on 24.02.2010 due to the reason that the pending issues of the Union were not taken up properly with the management. Mr. Solanki was therefore constrained to vacate the office of Secretary. The elections to the Executive Committee are held after every two years as per the Rules as amended on 9.10.1985 and duly intimated to defendant no. 1 on 9.10.1985. The plaintiffs no. 2 to 5 are currently occupying the offices of Secretary, President, Treasurer and Joint Secretary in the plaintiff no. 1. It is alleged that Mr. Raj Solanki after being removed from the post of Secretary on 24.3.2010 started working to the detriment of the plaintiff no. 1 in order to cause harm and break the union into small fractions. He had initiated malicious propaganda against plaintiffs and it has been learnt that he had floated another union by the name and style of SAIL Employees' Union Corporate Office registered with defendant no. 1 in CS No. 435/2010 Page No. 4 of 30 March, 2010. The plaintiff no. 1 has been functioning throughout and participating actively in the union activities and defendant no. 2 was providing returning officer in all the elections of the union in order to hold free and fair election. The defendant no. 2 signed number of bi partite agreement with plaintiff no. 1. The defendant no. 1 in collusion and connivance with Mr. Raj Solanki had tried to break the unity of plaintiff no. 1 and tried to suppress and disintegrate the plaintiff no. 1.
4. Plaintiffs have alleged that no notice or show cause notice or any other letter had ever been received by them from the defendant no. 1 or any other authority before the alleged cancellation of the registration of plaintiff no. 1. The plaintiffs had tried to acquire the information with regard to the status of plaintiff no. 1 in the records of defendant no. 1 but it was informed that the file relating to the plaintiff no. 1 had been misplaced and was not readily available. The plaintiffs wrote a letter dated 12.3.2010 to defendant no. 1 pointing out that the status of plaintiff no. 1 had been wrongly shown as cancelled and the same should be corrected but no action had been taken by defendant no. 1. The plaintiff no. 1 sent another letter dated 6.4.2010 to defendant no. 1 and also sent another letter dated 13.4.2010 addressed to Labour Commissioner, Delhi. Despite the service of said letters / communications, the defendant no. 1 has not corrected the status of CS No. 435/2010 Page No. 5 of 30 plaintiff no. 1 on the website and it appears that the status has been malafidely reflected as cancelled on the website in collusion with Mr. Raj Solanki. The records and registers of plaintiff no. 1 which were kept at the registered office of plaintiff no. 1 and were under the control of Mr. Raj Solanki have been stolen by him and these have not been returned to the new office bearers. A complaint dated 3.5.2010 in this regard has also been lodged with the SHO P.S. Lodhi Colony and the Commissioner of Police, New Delhi. The defendant no. 1 has issued a letter No. F.5/DLC/SD/10/DRTU/4374 dated 30.4.2010 in response to the letter written by defendant no. 2 regarding the status of plaintiff no. 1 and the rival union stating that registration of plaintiff no. 1 has been cancelled. It is averred that no show cause notice has been served upon the plaintiffs by defendant no. 1 before the alleged cancellation of registration. The order, if any, passed at the back of plaintiffs is illegal. Plaintiffs allege that no order of cancellation of the registration of plaintiff no. 1 has been served upon them till date. The alleged cancellation of registration of plaintiff no. 1 is illegal and is liable to be declared as such and defendant no. 2 is liable to be restrained from treating the plaintiff no. 1 as unregistered union. The plaintiffs sent a legal notice to defendant no. 1 on 01.05.2010 but despite service of legal notice the grievances of plaintiff has not been CS No. 435/2010 Page No. 6 of 30 considered. Hence the present suit.
5. The suit filed by the plaintiffs has been contested by the defendant no. 1 by way of filing written statement. The defendant admitted that plaintiff no. 1 / Steel Authority Employees Union was registered with the defendant on 13.10.1977 vide registration no. 2252. It is stated that the said union was cancelled due to non submission of Annual Return prior to 1989. The list of cancelled union has already been published on the website of labour department since 2006. The defendant has followed all the procedures before cancellation of registration of plaintiff's union. The plaintiff did not file any appeal against the order of cancellation of registered Trade union as per the provisions of Section 11 of The Trade Union Act, 1926 and Shri Raj Solanki, ExGeneral Secretary of the Steel Authority Employees Union / plaintiff no. 1 was also aware about the cancellation of registration of plaintiff's union. The plaintiff has already filed an application for restoration of Steel Authority Employees Union as a registered Trade Union before Deputy Registrar of Trade Union.
6. The suit filed by the plaintiffs has also been contested by the defendant no. 2 by way of filing written statement wherein preliminary objections have been raised that suit is bad for nonjoinder of Steel Authority of India Ltd, Employees Union Corporate Office, that this CS No. 435/2010 Page No. 7 of 30 court has no jurisdiction and authority to take cognizance of the grievance pertaining to refusal of cancellation of Certificate of Registration of the plaintiff no. 1 and the redressal of the aforesaid grievance are under the jurisdiction of the labour court or an Industrial Tribunal. It is admitted that plaintiff no. 1 was recognized and registered trade union of the Employees of Steel Authority of India Ltd. The registration of the plaintiff no. 1 has been cancelled by Deputy Registrar, Trade Union, South Delhi acting for defendant no. 1 vide letter no. F.5/DLC/SD/10/RTU/4374 dated 30.4.2010. The office bearers of Steel Authority of India Ltd., Employees Union Corporate office are already updated in the records of the Deputy Registrar of Trade Unions. It is stated that Shri Raj Solanki vide letter No. SEUCO/Genl/2010 dated 16.3.2010 has informed the defendant that the plaintiff no. 1 had been cancelled by the Deputy Registrar, Trade Union and another trade Union by the name of Steel Authority of India Ltd., Employees Union Corporate Office has been registered vide registration No. 09/DRTU/SD/2010 dated 13.3.2010. The defendant on receipt of letter no. F.5/DLC/SD/10/DRTU/4374 dated 30.4.2010 wrote a letter to secretary of the newly registered union namely Steel Authority of India Ltd., Employees Union Corporate Office directing them to forward the list of members of the newly CS No. 435/2010 Page No. 8 of 30 registered union and its bylaws. The said letter was replied by General Secretary and forwarded a list of 155 members alongwith the copy of ByLaws of the SEUCO. The defendant further wrote a letter No. PER/IR&W/10 on 24.5.2010 to the Secretary of newly registered Union (SEUCO) directing him to confirm the completion of membership requirement of all the 155 members. The defendant also wrote another letter dated 24.5.2010 to the Secretary of plaintiff no. 1 informing that the Deputy Registrar of Trade Unions Delhi had cancelled the registration no. 2252 of plaintiff no. 1. The newly elected union vide letter no. SEUCO/Genl./2010 dated 25.5.2010 confirmed that all the 155 members have fulfilled the membership requirements as contained in the bylaws of the SEUCO.
7. Defendant no. 4 has also filed written statement to the suit of the plaintiff. It is contended that plaintiffs have deliberately not furnished the true copy of the approved constitution and have instead relied on a fabricated and false copy of the constitution showing its office to be at the premises of the Head office of the Steel Authority of India Ltd, Ispat Bhawan, Lodi Road, Delhi to contend that no notice was received at this address. The defendant has every right to float another union under the name and style of SAIL Employees Union Corporate Office which has been not only registered by the defendant CS No. 435/2010 Page No. 9 of 30 no. 1 but has also been recognized by the defendant no. 2. The defendant no. 1 was constrained to cancel the registration of the plaintiff no. 1 because the plaintiff no. 1 was not being run in accordance with law. It is further contended that the plaintiff no. 1 had not been pursuing its activities from its approved registered office where the show cause notice might have been served on it by the defendant no.1. The plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief whatsoever as neither the plaintiff no. 1 has any legal existence nor the remaining plaintiffs can claim any infringement of legal right.
8. By order dated 04.03.2011, this Court framed the following issues for adjudication of the matter for trial:
1. Whether the plaintiffs have not approached the court with clean hands and suppressed the material facts from the court, if so, what facts? OPD no. 1
2. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed for want of service of statutory notice under Section 80 of CPC before filing the present suit? OPD
3. Whether the plaintiffs are not entitled to the equitable relief of injunction or any other relief in terms of Section 41(I) of The Specific Relief Act? OPD no. 4
4. Whether the registration of Union of plaintiff no. 1 has CS No. 435/2010 Page No. 10 of 30 been cancelled, if so, when and in that circumstances as to whether the jurisdiction of the court is barred? OPD
5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for a decree of declaration as prayed for in the suit? OPP
6. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for a decree of a permanent injunction, as prayed for in the suit? OPP
7. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for a decree of a mandatory injunction, as prayed for in the suit? OPP
8. Relief.
9. Thereafter the matter was fixed for plaintiffs' evidence. In order to prove their case, the plaintiffs got examined Mr. S.L. Raina as PW1. The evidence of plaintiff was closed on 21.05.2011. On the other hand, defendant no. 1 examined Mr. Peter Bara. Defendant no. 2 examined Shri Samir Swarup. Defendant no. 4 examined Mr. Raj Solanki. Defendants' evidence was closed on 14.10.2011. Thereafter the matter was fixed for final arguments.
10. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for both the parties and gone through the entire material available on record.
11. Learned counsel for plaintiffs submitted that the defendant no. 1 did not issue any show cause notice or afforded an opportunity of CS No. 435/2010 Page No. 11 of 30 hearing to the plaintiff no. 1 union before cancellation of its registration. Therefore, the alleged cancellation order passed by defendant no. 1 is illegal and null & void. Learned counsel further argued that the status of plaintiffs' union has been shown as cancelled on the website of Labour Department while the cancellation order of plaintiffs' union is not available on the website. Learned counsel further submitted that there is infact no cancellation order showing cancellation of the plaintiff no. 1's union and therefore, even despite repeated directions of the court, the defendant no. 1 failed to produce the same even in the court. Learned counsel further argued that the defendant no. 1 is in hand and glove with defendant no. 4 and the defendant no. 1 malafidely cancelled the registration of the plaintiff no. 1's union. Learned counsel after drawing the attention of the court to the testimony of plaintiffs' witness, the documents proved by him during his deposition and other material available on record submitted that plaintiffs have proved their case against the defendants beyond all probability and therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiffs may kindly be decreed.
12. Per contra, it was submitted by learned counsel for defendant no. 4 that the status of cancellation of plaintiff no. 1's union shown on the website has gone unrebutted. It was further submitted that the CS No. 435/2010 Page No. 12 of 30 plaintiff is bound to have constructive notice of the cancellation of its union after cancellation order has been passed. It was further submitted that the plaintiffs are not entitled for a decree of declaration as prayed for in the suit as they have failed to show their legal character or legal existence. Learned counsel for defendant further argued that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed as plaintiffs did not serve two months statutory notice upon the defendants before filing the present suit against them. It was further argued that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is barred by the law of limitation. It was further submitted that the plaintiffs have filed forged & fabricated document in order to mislead the court. The original copy or true copy of the constitution of plaintiffs' union has not been filed by the plaintiffs but they have filed only the photocopy of the same and therefore, an adverse inference should be drawn against the plaintiffs' union. Defendant no. 1 to 3 filed their written submissions wherein the objections have been taken for nonservice of statutory notice upon the defendants prior to the filling of the suit. The defendants also took the objection that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit as per Section 11 of The Trade Union Act. It has also been stated that the present suit is barred by limitation as per Section 10 of The Trade Union Act, 1926. It was argued by counsel CS No. 435/2010 Page No. 13 of 30 for defendant no. 2 that defendant no. 2 recognized the union of defendant no. 4 after receiving the confirmation letter from defendant no. 1 regarding its registration. It was further argued that the defendant no. 2 did not have any role in cancellation of the registration of the trade union of plaintiff no. 1. It was submitted by counsel for all the defendants that plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove their case and therefore, the suit filed by them may kindly be dismissed.
13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by learned counsel for both the parties and gone through the entire material available on record.
ISSUE NO. 1
Whether the plaintiffs have not approached the court with clean hands and suppressed the material facts from the court, if so, what facts? OPD no. 1
14. In order to discharge the onus to prove this issue, the defendant no. 1 got examined Mr. Peter Bara as its witness. He filed his evidence by way of affidavit and tendered the same in evidence. In his affidavit Mr. Bara has reiterated the same facts which has been stated in the written statement of defendant no. 1. The affidavit of Mr. Bara does not disclose about the facts which has been suppressed by the plaintiffs from the court. Defendant no. 1 has also failed to show as CS No. 435/2010 Page No. 14 of 30 to how the plaintiffs have not approached the court with clean hands. The defendant no. 1 has miserably failed to discharge the onus to prove the aforesaid issue. Accordingly, this issue is decided against defendant no. 1.
ISSUE NO. 2 Whether the suit filed by the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed for want of service of statutory notice under Section 80 of CPC before filing the present suit? OPD
15. Onus to prove this issue lies upon the defendants. The defendants took the objection in their written statement that no notice under Section 80 CPC was served upon them before filing of the present suit and therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed. The plaintiffs have admitted that no notice was served upon the defendants prior to filing of the suit. It was submitted that the plaintiffs moved an application under Section 80(2) r/w Section 151 CPC for waiver of the statutory notice along with their suit. Since the application of plaintiffs has not been dismissed and the summons of the suit was directed to be issued to defendants, therefore, the permission to sue is deemed to have been granted by the court. On the other hand, counsel for defendants submitted that since the plaintiffs did not press for disposal of their application and therefore, it cannot CS No. 435/2010 Page No. 15 of 30 be said that the permission to sue the defendants was granted by the court and the service of prior notice was waived. Perusal of record shows that no relief was granted against the defendants by the court prior to their appearance in the court. The main purpose of service of prior notice upon a public authority is that the public authority may have the intimation of the allegation levelled against it. The public authority may also get an opportunity to settle the matter with a party before filing of the suit. The defendants became aware about the allegations levelled against them when summons of the suit was served upon them. Even prior to the filing of the suit the plaintiffs sent legal notice to defendant no. 1 which was not replied by them despite service of notice. Thus, defendants were aware of the allegation levelled against them even prior to the filing of the suit in the court. The purpose of service of prior notice upon the defendants was served. No exparte relief was granted to the plaintiffs by the court against the defendants. The plaintiffs moved an application under Section 80(2) r/w Section 151 CPC for waiver of statutory notice along with the suit. When the court proceeded to issue summons to the defendants, the statutory requirement of service of prior notice upon the defendants is deemed to have been waived. In these circumstances, the suit filed by the plaintiffs cannot be dismissed for want of service of statutory CS No. 435/2010 Page No. 16 of 30 notice under Section 80 CPC upon the defendants. This issue is decided against the defendants.
ISSUE NO. 4 Whether the registration of Union of plaintiff no. 1 has been cancelled, if so, when and in that circumstances as to whether the jurisdiction of the court is barred? OPD
16. Onus to prove this issue lies upon defendants. The defendants have written in their written statement that the registration of union of plaintiff no. 1 was cancelled. The date on which the registration was cancelled has not been furnished by the defendants. The defendant no. 1's witness Mr. Peter Bara stated in his affidavit that the union of plaintiff no. 1 was cancelled due to nonsubmission of annual return prior to 1989. He further stated that the list of cancelled union has been published on the website of Labour Department since 2006. The defendant no. 1 is the competent authority to cancel the registration of a trade union. Neither in the written statement nor in the course of deposition, the defendants have provided the date and year of cancellation of plaintiff no. 1. Thus, the defendants have miserably failed to prove on record that the registration of plaintiff no. 1 was cancelled. The court granted sufficient opportunity to defendant no. 1 to produce the cancellation order in the court but despite sufficient CS No. 435/2010 Page No. 17 of 30 time and opportunity given to defendant no. 1, the defendant no. 1 failed to produce the cancellation order. D1W1 Mr. Peter Bara in his cross examination could not tell the date when the status of plaintiff union was reflected as cancelled on the website of Labour Department. He admitted that the cancellation order of the registration of plaintiff's union was not available in the office of defendant no. 1. After hearing counsel for both the parties on the point of maintainability of the suit and jurisdiction of the Court to try the case, this Court passed a detailed order on 26.02.2011 holding that this court has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present matter as the jurisdiction of this court is neither expressly nor impliedly barred by the statute. Since the finding has already been given by this court on the aforesaid aspect on 26.02.2011, therefore, the same is not being repeated here for the sake of repetition.
17. In view of discussion made above, it is held that the jurisdiction of this court is not barred. The defendants have miserably failed to discharge the onus to prove this issue. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the defendants.
ISSUE NO. 3 Whether the plaintiffs are not entitled to the equitable relief of injunction or any other relief in terms of Section 41(I) of The CS No. 435/2010 Page No. 18 of 30 Specific Relief Act? OPD no. 4 ISSUE NO. 5 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for a decree of declaration as prayed for in the suit? OPP ISSUE NO. 6 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for a decree of a permanent injunction, as prayed for in the suit? OPP AND ISSUE NO. 7 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for a decree of a mandatory injunction, as prayed for in the suit? OPP
18. The onus to prove issue no. 3 lies upon defendant no. 4. The onus to prove issues no. 5 to 7 lies on plaintiffs. The defendant no. 4 examined Mr. Raj Solanki in order to discharge the onus. Mr. Solanki filed his evidence by way of affidavit. In his affidavit he has reiterated the same facts as has been stated in the written statement of defendant no. 4. On the other hand, the plaintiffs in order to discharge the onus to prove issues no. 5 to 7 got examined Mr. S. L. Raina on their behalf. Mr. Raina has filed his evidence by way of affidavit wherein he has re iterated the same facts as has been stated in the plaint. In the course of his deposition, PW1 proved resolution dated 27.04.2010 Ex.PW1/2 whereby he was authorized to appear, file documents and represent the plaintiffs' union in all the cases pending in the office of SubRegistrar CS No. 435/2010 Page No. 19 of 30 Trade Union), Labour Commissioner (NCR) and in the court of law. He also proved the recognition letter dated 16.01.1978 Ex.PW1/3 whereby the defendant no. 2 recognized the plaintiffs' union. He further proved the letter dated 09.10.1985 Ex.PW1/6, copy of website information Ex.PW1/12, copy of application under The RTI Act Ex.PW1/13, reply given by defendant no. 1 dated 21.05.2010 Ex.PW1/14, copies of letters dated 12.03.2010 & 06.04.2010 Ex.PW1/15 & Ex.PW1/16 respectively. He also proved complaint dated 03.05.2010 Ex.PW1/18, postal receipts Ex.PW1/19 and legal notice dated 01.05.2010 Ex.PW1/23.
19. The plaintiffs have prayed for a decree of declaration in their favour and against the defendants thereby declaring that the plaintiff no. 1 is the duly registered trade union under the provisions of The Trade Unions Act, 1926 and the letter dated 30.04.2010 is illegal, null & void and non est. The allegation of the plaintiffs is that the defendant no. 1 cancelled the registration of plaintiff no. 1 without issuance and service of show cause notice and without affording an opportunity of hearing to them. D1W1 Mr. Peter Bara failed to produce any proof for issuance of show cause notice to plaintiff no. 1 or the cancellation order showing the cancellation of registration of plaintiff's union despite sufficient time and opportunity given to him. CS No. 435/2010 Page No. 20 of 30 Mr. Bara admitted in his cross examination that there is no cancellation order of plaintiff union available in the office of defendant no. 1. He further admitted that he cannot show any document revealing that show cause notice was issued to the plaintiff union regarding cancellation. He further admitted that he cannot show any communication regarding procedure adopted by the office of defendant no. 1 for starting the process of cancellation of plaintiff union.
20. Section 10 of The Trade Unions Act, 1926 deals with the procedure for cancellation of registration of a Trade Union. Section 10 reads as under:
"Cancellation of registration - A certificate of registration of a Trade Union may be withdrawn or cancelled by the Registrar -
(a) on the application of the Trade Union to be verified in such manner as may be prescribed, or
(b) if the Registrar is satisfied that the certificate has been obtained by fraud or mistake, or that the Trade Union has ceased to exist or has willfully and after notice from the Registrar contravened CS No. 435/2010 Page No. 21 of 30 any provision of this Act or allowed any rule to continue in force which is inconsistent with any such provision, or has rescinded any rule providing for any matter provision for which is required by section 6:
Provided that not less than two months' previous notice in writing specifying the ground on which it is proposed to withdraw or cancel the certificate shall be given by the Registrar to the Trade Union before the certificate is withdrawn or cancelled otherwise than on the application of the Trade Union."
21. A bare reading of Section 10 of The Act shows that the registration of a particular trade union can be cancelled or withdrawn by the registrar after issuance of at least two months' notice in writing upon the trade union. The ground on which the registration of a trade union can be cancelled are also provided in clause (b) of Section 10 of The Act. The defendant no. 1 has miserably failed to prove and show on record that two months' prior notice was issued or served upon the plaintiff union prior to its cancellation. The grounds for cancellation of registration of plaintiff no. 1 has also not been communicated to the CS No. 435/2010 Page No. 22 of 30 plaintiffs. It was held in the case titled as Saraswat Coop. Bank Employees' Union v. State of Maharashtra and Others 1996 L.A.B. I.C. 1700 that in order to invoke registration under Section 10 of the Act there must be sufficient material before the Registrar, that the trade union concerned should have willfully contravened any provision of the Act or any Rule. Unless the intentional violation of the Rule or Act is established, the Registrar cannot cancel the registration of a trade union.
22. It was further held in the case of Coromandel Cement Factory Employees Union v. Deputy Registrar of Trade Unions and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Kurnool and Others that cancellation of registration for nonsubmission of Annual Returns without giving second show cause notice and without giving opportunity to represent its case to the union, the cancellation order is liable to be set aside for contravention of Section 10 of The Trade Unions Act, 1926 and for being violative of the principles of natural justice .
23. It was also held in the case of E.C.I.L. Employees Union v. Deputy Registrar of Trade Unions and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad 2001 LLR 828 that the cancellation of CS No. 435/2010 Page No. 23 of 30 registration of trade union cannot be made unless two months' written prior notice specifying the ground of cancellation is issued to trade union about the intentional violation of any of the provisions of the Act or any Rule.
24. In the case in hand, the defendant no. 1 has alleged that the registration of union of plaintiffs was cancelled due to non submission of Annual Return prior to 1989. The cancellation order was never conveyed to the plaintiffs' Union. The defendant's witness Mr. Peter Bara himself stated that the list of cancelled union has been published on the website of Labour Department since 2006. He further stated that the defendant followed all procedure before cancellation of registration and the office bearers of trade union were all aware about the fact that status of union was cancelled after cancellation of trade union. He further stated that the plaintiff did not file any appeal against the order of registrar of trade union and Mr. Raj Solanki, exGeneral Secretary of Steel Employees Union was also made aware of this fact that the registration of union was cancelled. The cancellation order has neither been supplied and communicated to the plaintiffs' union nor the same was filed in the court. Hence, there was no occasion for the plaintiffs to prefer an appeal against the cancellation order alleged to be passed by defendant no. 1. The defendant no. 1 even failed to CS No. 435/2010 Page No. 24 of 30 disclose as to when registration of plaintiffs' union was cancelled.
25. The defendant no. 1 has miserably failed to prove on record that any show cause notice was ever issued and served upon plaintiffs' union or an opportunity of hearing was afforded to them prior to the cancellation of the registration of plaintiff no. 1. The defendant no. 1 acted in gross violation of the provisions contained in Section 10 of The Trade Unions Act and also failed to observe the principles of natural justice before cancellation of the registration of trade union of plaintiffs. Thus, the so called cancellation order passed by the Registrar is illegal, arbitrary and null & void.
26. Consequently, the letter dated 30.04.2010 Ex.D1W1/P2 whereby the Deputy Registrar communicated to the Deputy Labour Commissioner regarding the cancellation of trade union of plaintiffs, is also null & void.
27. Admittedly, the Steel Authority Employees' Union was registered with the defendant no. 1 on 13.10.1997 vide registration no. 2252. As observed earlier, the registration of plaintiffs' trade union has not been validly cancelled by the Registrar. Mr. Raj Solanki, the Secretary of defendant no. 4, was exGeneral Secretary of plaintiff no. 1 for nearly 10 years from 2001 to 2010. He floated a new union in the name of SAIL Employees' Union Corporate Office in the year 2010 CS No. 435/2010 Page No. 25 of 30 and since then he is claiming himself to be its Secretary. In his affidavit Mr. Raj Solanki has alleged that the plaintiff has falsely represented to this court that its Head Office is located at Ispat Bhawan, Lodhi Road, Delhi. He has further stated that plaintiff has not filed any document to show that the change in the address of its Head Office from Hindustan Times House, 14th Floor, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi to its present alleged address at Ispat Bhawan was ever intimated to defendant no. 1. In the absence of the fulfillment of this condition precedent, the plaintiff has no right to contend that the cancellation of its registration is bad for noncompliance with the principles of natural justice. Mr. Solanki himself remained exGeneral Secretary of the plaintiffs' union for around 10 years. In his cross examination he could not tell when the office of plaintiffs' union at Ispat Bhawan was shifted. He has stated that in the year 199697, he came to know that the office of plaintiff union was at Ispat Bhawan. He has also admitted that the address of Ispat Bhawan is mentioned on circular dated 29.05.2004 Ex.PW1/D2. This circular was issued by none other than Mr. Solanki himself. Thus, from the documents placed on record, it is seen that the office of plaintiff union was at Ispat Bhawan and Mr. Solanki was well aware of it. Moreover, the defendant no. 1 has nowhere disputed the address of the Head Office CS No. 435/2010 Page No. 26 of 30 of plaintiff no. 1.
28. The next contention of defendants is that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is time barred. The defendants have failed to show how the suit filed by the plaintiffs is time barred. It was submitted by counsel for defendants that the information to the effect that the registration of plaintiffs' union has been cancelled, had been placed on the website of Labour Department in the year 2006 in compliance with requirement of Section 4 of The Right to Information Act. The internet is accessible to the general public. Since the fact of cancellation of the status of the plaintiffs' union had been put in public domain, the plaintiff is deemed to have a constructive notice thereof. The plaintiff with this constructive notice of information available in public domain like any reasonable and prudent person should have approached the court for the relief now being sought not in any case later than the year 2009 in terms of Article 58 of The Limitation Act. The suit is clearly barred in terms of Section 3 of The Limitation Act, 1963. On the other hand, it was submitted by counsel for plaintiffs that the suit is not barred by limitation as alleged because the General Secretary of defendant no. 4 had been occupying the office of the Secretary of plaintiff union from the year 2001 to 2010 and after being expelled from the plaintiff union, he started spreading rumours that registration CS No. 435/2010 Page No. 27 of 30 of plaintiff union has been cancelled. The office bearers of the plaintiff union took immediate steps and started communication with the office of defendant no. 1 in this regard. D1W1 Mr. Peter Bara, the witness of defendant, has admitted in his cross examination that letter Ex.PW1/15, Ex.PW1/16 and MarkD have been received by his office. He also admitted that no reply was given to the letters submitted by the plaintiff union. The legal notice was also served in the office of defendant no. 1, which was also not replied. He further admitted that the plaintiff union had filed an application under The Right to Information Act Ex.PW1/13 which was replied by the department vide reply Ex.D1W1/P1. He further admitted that the defendant no. 2 had written a letter dated 28.04.2010 to defendant no. 1 asking about the status of plaintiff union. The defendant no. 1 replied to the letter dated 28.04.2010 vide letter dated 30.04.2010 Ex.D1W1/P2. Thus, it is seen that the plaintiffs were not aware about the fact of cancellation of the registration of their union. When the plaintiffs came to know about the cancellation of their union, they immediately took steps to know about its status. They sent legal notice dated 01.05.2010 Ex.PW1/23 to the defendant no. 1. When the plaintiffs failed to get any response from defendant no. 1, they filed the suit in the court. The plaintiffs came to know about the cancellation of their trade union in the year 2010. The CS No. 435/2010 Page No. 28 of 30 suit has been filed on 11.05.2010 i.e. within 3 years from the date of knowledge of the cancellation. Thus, the suit filed by the plaintiffs is not barred by the limitation.
29. The plaintiffs have succeeded to prove their case against the defendants beyond all probability. They have proved on record that no show cause notice was issued or an opportunity of hearing was given to them prior to the cancellation of their trade union. The defendant no. 1 acted in contravention of Section 10 of The Trade Unions Act in cancelling the registration of plaintiff no. 1 without any sufficient reason. Defendant no. 4 has failed to discharge the onus to prove issue no. 3. The plaintiffs have succeeded in discharging the onus to prove issue no. 5 to 7. Accordingly, issue no. 3 is decided against defendant no. 4 and issue no. 5 to 7 are decided in favour of plaintiffs.
RELIEF
30. In view of my observation and findings on issue no. 4 and 5 to 7, the suit filed by the plaintiffs is decreed with costs. Plaintiff no. 1 is declared as the duly registered trade union under the provisions of The Trade Unions Act, 1926 and the letter dated 30.04.2010 is declared illegal and null & void. The defendant no. 1 is directed to withdraw the alleged cancellation order deregistering plaintiff no. 1 under the CS No. 435/2010 Page No. 29 of 30 provisions of The Trade Unions Act, 1926 and withdraw all the orders passed consequent thereto. The defendants no. 1 to 3, their servants, agents, representatives and successors etc. are restrained from changing the status and position of plaintiff no. 1 and other plaintiffs without following due process of law. Decree sheet be prepared. File be consigned to record room.
(Announced in open Court (RAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI)
on 28.11.2011) Additional Senior Civil Judge (South)
Saket Courts, New Delhi.
CS No. 435/2010 Page No. 30 of 30