Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Coromandal Cement Factory Employees ... vs Deputy Registrar Of Trade Union And ... on 19 September, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(6)ALD341, 2000(6)ALT126, [2000(87)FLR964], (2001)ILLJ947AP
Author: E. Dharma Rao
Bench: E. Dharma Rao
ORDER
1. This writ petition is filed assailing the order of cancellation of registration of the petitioner-Union by the 1st respondent through proceedings in Rc.No.B2/Pdl.59/90 dated 19-10-1992 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice.
2. It is submitted by the petitioner -Union that it was registered as F-435 and a certificate was issued by the Registrar. Thereafter, the Commissioner of Labour, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad has recognised the petitioner-Union as a representative Union since it has secured majority of votes in the secret ballot election held on 23-6-1988.
3. It is further submitted by the petitioner that it had been submitting the returns in Form-E every year without fail. For the year 1990 also the petitioner has submitted the annual returns before 30-4-1991 in duplicate in Form-E. But, the 1st respondent has issued notice to the petitioner expressing the intention of cancellation of registration of the petitioner for its failure to submit the annual returns for the calendar year 1990. The petitionerhas denied the receipt of the said notice sent by the 1st respondent on 7-3-1992. The notice issued by the 1st respondent is a general notice issued to the General Secretaries of all Trade Unions in Kurnool region. Had the petitioner received this notice, it would have submitted the explanation. But. in view of the failure of the petitioner to submit explanation to the above notice, the 1st respondent passed order cancelling the registration of the petitioner. Assailing the correctness of this order of the 1 st respondent, the petitioner filed this Writ Petition contending that as per Section 31 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (for short, 'the Act') the respondent can impose a fine of Rs.5/- for conlinued default with additional fine which may extend to Rs.5/-. However, the aggregate fine shall not exceed Rs.50/-. It is further contended that under Section 10 of the Act, before cancelling the registration, the respondent has to give a notice for showing cause for not submitting the returns. Thereafter, before cancelling the registration, a second notice has to be given. But, the 1st respondent, without giving a second notice, cancelled the registration of the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent is bad in law. Section 10 of the Act contemplates the ground for cancellation of the registration of a Trade Union, according to which if a Union wilfully and after notice from the Registrar contravenes any provisions of this Act, its registration is liable to be cancelled. But, in the present case on hand, the petitioner-Union has not contravened any provision of the Act wilfully after notice from the Registrar. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the respondent is contrary to the provisions of Section 10 of the Act. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that before cancelling the registration under Section 10 of the Act, the respondent has not given any opportunity to the petitioner and, therefore, the impugned order violates theprinciples of natural justice. For all the reasons stated above, the petitioner submits that the order passed by the respondent is illegal, arbitrary and is in violation of the principles of natural justice.
4. The learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the 1st respondent filed a counter stating that under Section 10(b) of the Act, the respondent has issued a show-cause notice dated 7-3-1992 for non-submission of the returns for the year 1990 on or before 30-4-1991 under Section 28 of the Act. The petitioner has not submitted any reply to the impugned notice dated 7-3-1992. Therefore, in exercise of the powers contemplated under Section 10 of the Act, the impugned proceedings were issued cancelling the registration of the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent is legal and sustainable under the provisions of the Act.
5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the pelitioner relied on the rulings of various Courts. He relied on a judgment of the Mysore High Court in Mysore Iron and Steel Works, Labourers' Association v. Commissioner of Labour and Registrar of Trade Unions, Bangalore, 1972 LAB 1C 799, wherein it was held:
"It is clear from Section 10 of the Act before the Registrar can take any action to cancel the registration on the ground that the Trade Union has wilfully and after notice from the Registrar contravened any provision of the Act, a notice has to be given by the Registrar of a duration of not less than two months specifying the ground on which it is proposed to cancel the registration. The object of giving a notice under the proviso to Section 10 is obviously to give an opportunity to the trade union to show-cause against the proposed action."
6. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it was held that the notice contemplated under the proviso to Section 10 of the Act is mandatory and the Registrar is not competent to pass an order cancelling the registration without, in the first instance, giving a notice and giving an opportunity to the Trade Union to show-cause against the proposed action. He also relied on a judgment of the Bombay High Court in Tata Electric Companies Officer Guild v. Registrar Of Trade Unions, 1993 LAB IC 1849, wherein it was held that while cancelling the registration of a Trade Union for contravention of any provision of the Act, the contravention must be willful after notice from the Registrar. He next relied on another judgment of the Bombay High Court in Sarawat Co-op. Bank Employees Union v. Stale of Maharashtra ami others, 1997 (1) LLJ 38, wherein it was held that the registration of a Trade Union cannot be cancelled unless there is wilful and intentional contravention of any provisions of the Act or any rule made thereunder. In another judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Nagda Rashtra Seva Karmachari Congress and another v. Industrial Court and another, 1997 (77) FLR 139, it was held that while making a decision to cancel the registration of a trade union, principles of natural justice must be followed by giving an opportunity of hearing to the trade union. He lastly relied on another judgment of the Bombay High Court in Tata Memorial Hospital Workers Union and another v. Madhukar S. Want and others, 1998 (79) FLR 225, wherein it was held that imposition of the extreme penalty of cancellation of registration for the alleged default and irregularities including the delay in filing the annual returns is not proportionate under the Act and thus the cancellation order is bad in law.
7. A scrutiny of the above settled legal propositions relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner postulates that though the Registrar has got the power to cancel theregistration of a Trade Union for wilful contravention of any provision of the Act after notice from the Registrar, a show-cause notice must be issued showing the cause for cancellation of the registration giving two months time. After receiving the explanation from the Trade Union, another notice has to be issued proposing to impose the punishment of cancellation of registration against the Trade Union. As seen from the facts and circumstances of this case, the Registrar has issued a show-cause notice on 7-3-1992 to the General Secretary of the petitioner-Union and the petitioner has denied the receipt of such notice. On the other hand, it is asserted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has submitted its annual returns before 30-4-1991 for the year 1990 and it is evident from the records that the respondent has not stated anything about the receipt of the notice dated 7-3-1992 by the petitioner. It is further evident from the records that the respondent has not given any second show-cause notice to the petitioner before initiating the action of cancellation of the registration. When the rights of a citizen or a Union are effected by the proposed imposition of any punishment, he or it must be heard in person or through an advocate. In this case, the respondent has not given any opportunity to the petitioner to represent its case before passing the impugned order. Therefore, following the rulings of various High Courts referred to above as per the provisions of the Act the respondents have not given a second show-cause notice while cancelling the registration of the petitioner-trade union for not submitting the annual returns for the year 1990 and the respondents have not given any opportunity to represent the case of the petitioner before passing the impugned proceedings. Therefore, the impugned order dated 19-10-1992 passed by the 2nd respondent cancelling the registration of the petitioner-trade union is contrary to the provisions of Section 10 of the Act andoffending the principles of natural justice and, therefore, liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. However, this does not preclude the respondents from proceeding with the matter except in compliance of the provisions of the Act.
8. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.