Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/14 vs The Labour Commissioner Cum Registrar ... on 19 August, 2025
Page No.# 1/14
GAHC010051682025
2025:GAU-AS:10987
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : CRP(IO)/85/2025
CHEMISTS AND DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION OF ASSAM,
A TRADE UNION FORMERLY REGISTERED UNDER THE TRADE UNIONS
ACT, 1929 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT BANINAGAR, REHABARI,
GUWAHATI IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN-781008
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SRI LITU BARMAN
VERSUS
THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER CUM REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS OF
ASSAM AND ANR.
SHRAM BHAWAN, ULUBARI, GUWAHATI- 781007 IN THE DISTRICT OF
KAMRUP(M), ASSAM
2:MD. ABED ULLAH
S/O LATE SAFI ULLAH
R/O BISHOP PLAZA
COL. J. ALI ROAD
LAKHTOKIA
GUWAHATI- 781001
ASSA M
Linked Case : I.A.(Civil)/2182/2025
LABOUR COMMISSIONER CUM REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS ASSAM
SHRAM BHAWAN
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI- 781007
DISTRICT- KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
Page No.# 2/14
VERSUS
CHEMISTS AND DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION OF ASSAM
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT BANINAGAR
REHABARI
GUWAHATI-781008
DISTRICT- KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
------------
Advocate for : MR S CHAKRABORTY
Advocate for : MR. A BHATRA appearing for CHEMISTS AND DRUGGISTS
ASSOCIATION OF ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A BHATRA, MR. B D DEKA,MR. M DAS,MR A DEKA,N
CHAUDHURY
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. P HAZARIKA (R-1), MR S CHAKRABORTY (R-1)
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN
ORDER
19.08.2025 Heard Mr. B. D. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1; and Mr. S. Dutta, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. I Lahiri, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.
2. By this common order, it is proposed to dispose of the present Civil Revision Petition (I/O) No. 85 of 2025 and also the I.A.(C) No. 2182 of 2025, as the parties involved in both are same and a common question of law is involved in the same.
3. In the Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, namely, Chemists and Druggists Association of Assam (petitioner Page No.# 3/14 association hereinafter), has challenging the orders dated 10.02.2025 and 21.02.2025, passed by the learned Labour Court at Guwahati (Labour Court hereinafter), in Misc. Case No. 1/2023, arising out of Appeal No. 1/2023.
3.1. It is to be noted here that vide impugned orders dated 10.02.2025 and 21.02.2025, the learned Labour Court has vacated the order dated 07.09.2023, by which the order dated 30.08.2023, passed by the Registrar of Trade Unions, Assam, was stayed till disposal of the appeal and rejected the application filed under Order 41 Rule 5, read with Order 39 Rule 1 and 2, also read with Section 151 of the CPC.
3.2. And in the I.A.(C) No. 2182 of 2025, the applicant/ respondent No.1 has prayed for vacation of the order dated 26.03.2025, passed by this court, by which the order dated 30.08.2023, so passed by the respondent No.1 was stayed.
4. Mr. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner association had preferred an appeal, being Appeal No. 1/2023, against the order dated 30.08.2023, passed by the Registrar, Trade Unions, Assam, thereby cancelling the registration of the petitioners' association before the learned Labour Court. In the said appeal, the petitioner association had also filed an application under Order 41 Rule 5, read with Order 39 Rules 1 & 2, also read with Section 151 of the CPC for staying the order dated 30.08.2023, passed by the Registrar of Trade Unions, Assam. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court, vide order dated 07.09.2023, had granted stay of the order dated 30.08.2023. But, vide order dated 21.02.2025, the learned Labour Court had vacated the earlier order dated 07.09.2023.
4.1. Mr. Deka further submits that the petitioner association is Trade Union, Page No.# 4/14 formerly registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (the Act of 1926 hereinafter) having its registered office at Baninagar, Rehabari, Guwahati and the said association was affiliated to the All India Organization of Chemists and Druggist. And at the time of registration of the petitioner association, it had submitted one application along with the Memorandum of Association of the CDAA and on the basis of the application, the Registrar of Trade Unions had registered the petitioner association. Mr. Deka further submits that before filing the application for registration under the Act of 1926, the petitioner association filed one application for registration under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (the Act of 1860 hereinafter), but, the said application was withdrawn before the registration being granted. Thereafter, on the basis of some allegations filed by the respondent No. 2 herein, the Registrar of Trade Unions, vide impugned order dated 30.08.2023, cancelled the same.
4.2. Further submission of Mr. Deka is that while the appeal was pending before the learned Labour Court, cancellation of the order of registration of the petitioner association, vide order dated 30.08.2023, passed by the learned Labour Commissioner would have resulted in serious civil consequences and for which, it had preferred one appeal before the learned Labour Court and the learned Labour Court had granted stay of the same, vide order dated 07.09.2023. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court, vide order dated 21.02.2025, had vacated the aforementioned interim order. Mr. Deka further submits that while vacating the interim order, the learned Labour Court had failed to take note of the civil consequences, while the same has already been observed by a coordinate bench of this court that the allegation of fraud allegedly practiced by association cannot be summarily decided and that the learned Labour Court, on the ground that the trial will take long time, had vacated the interim order Page No.# 5/14 without comprehending the civil consequences such as de-recognition of the body.
4.3. Mr. Deka also submits that it is a fact that the petitioner association had produced one of the two resolutions adopted by the union, and that the Section 5 of the Act of 1926 requires no resolution for registration of a trade union, rather it requires only memorandum of association, which the petitioner association had already furnished. Mr. Deka further submits that there are as many as 5000 members in the association and if the interim was not allowed to continue till disposal of the appeal pending before the learned Labour Court, serious prejudice will be caused to the members and that even if the interim order passed by the learned Labour Court is set aside, the respondent No. 1 would not suffer any prejudice.
4.4. It is also submitted by Mr. Deka that in the case of Mool Chand Yadav and Another vs. Raza Buland Sugar Company Limited, Rampur and Others, reported in (1982) 3 SCC 484, Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with Order 41 Rule 5 of the CPC had held that if the orders are challenged and the appeals are pending, one cannot permit a swinging of pendulum continuously taking place during the pendency of the appeal and that judicial approach requires that during the pendency of the appeal, the operation of an order having serious civil consequences must be suspended, more so, when the appeal is admitted. As such, Mr. Deka submits, while the appeal is pending before the learned Labour Court, the order passed by the Registrar of Trade Unions has to be stayed and under such circumstances, it is contended to allow this petition by setting aside the impugned order passed by the learned Labour Court on 07.09.2023.
Page No.# 6/14
5. Per-contra, Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, and applicant in I.A. (C) No.2182/2025, has vehemently opposed the petition and also opposed further extension of the order dated 26.03.2025, passed by this court by which the impugned order dated 30.08.2025, was stayed. Mr. Chakraborty has pointed out that before filing an application before the Registrar of Trade Unions, the petitioner association had filed an application under the Act of 1860 for registration of their association. But, the same could not be registered under the said Act since the Secretary of the association has one criminal case against him pending before the court and thereafter, it has fraudulently filed another application enclosing a separate resolution, but, with same signatures of the office bearers, on the strength of which the Registrar of Trade Unions had registered the petitioner association. But, thereafter, one Mr. Abedulla had apprised the Registrar of Trade Unions that the registration of the petitioner association was obtained fraudulently, by forging the resolution and then, the Registrar, Trade Unions had issued one notice to the petitioner association and after hearing both the parties and considering the materials placed on record had rightly cancelled the registration. Mr. Chakraborty further submits that though the learned Labour Court had granted stay of the order dated 30.08.2023, yet, subsequently, the learned Labour Court considering all the aspects, had vacated the said stay order and the same being challenged in this petition and that this court without considering the prima-facie case, the balance of convenience and the irreparable loss had stayed the order and the same is liable to be vacated and that the petition is liable to be dismissed.
5.1. To strengthen his submission, Mr. Chakraborty has referred following decisions:-
(i) S.J. Ebenezer vs. Velayudhan and Others, reported in Page No.# 7/14 (1998) 1 SCC 633 and
(ii) Estralla Rubber vs. Dass Estate (P) Limited, reported in (2001) 8 SCC 97.
6. Whereas, Mr. Dutta, learned senior counsel for the respondent No.2, submits that though it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are serious civil consequences, yet, it is not true and that even if their registration is cancelled, their body will not be de-recognized by the parent body. Mr. Dutta further submits that the petitioner association has failed to produce the resolutions adopted by their union before the learned Labour Court and all these factors go to show that the registration was obtained fraudulently and that this court while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot examine the veracity of the allegation on the basis of which the jurisdiction of the petitioners' association was cancelled. Under such circumstances, Mr. Dutta submits that the order passed by the learned Labour Court dated 07.09.2023, requires no interference of this court and therefore, it is contended to dismiss this petition.
7. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record and also perused the orders dated 10.02.2025 and 21.02.2025, passed by the learned Labour Court and also perused the decisions referred by learned counsel for both the parties.
8. A reading of the order dated 10.02.2025, indicates that the learned Labour Court, having perused the order dated 07.09.2023 observed that the very purpose of the passing the injunction order dated 07.09.2023, in favour of the appellant was in order to enable them to take part in the election process of the Page No.# 8/14 National Trade Union meet which is already over. Further extension of order dated 07.09.2023 would only cause delay in conducting expedite trial of the case and then considering the same, the learned Court had vacated the order dated 07.09.2023.
8.1. Also a careful perusal of the order dated 21.02.2025, it appears that the learned Labour Court, considering all the aspects, had arrived at a finding that without proper examination of witnesses involved in the main appeal, further extension of the stay order/injunction order would cause undue delay in conducting expedite trial of the appeal and thereafter, vacated the stay order dated 07.09.2023.
8.2. And while arriving at such a finding, the learned Labour Court had also discussed the principle of granting temporary injunction and observed that the petitioner/appellant had raised an issue against the respondent that in spite of all complaints raised against the petitioner/appellant were found to be meritless and the matter ended there, but, the respondent suddenly on 12.05.2023, issued a show cause notice under Section 10 (b) of the Act of 1926 for cancellation of the certificate of registration and vide impugned order dated 30.08.2023, the respondent No.1, had cancelled the registration of the petitioner/appellant.
8.3. The learned Labour Court further observed that in contradiction to the statements made by the appellant/petitioner, the respondent/opposite party has vehemently denied the points, by submitting that a mere examination of the minutes of the two meetings, purportedly held on 12.08.2018, clearly shows the fraud committed by the appellant/petitioners. It is also stated by the respondent/opposite party that in the minutes of meeting of 12.08.2018, it appears that the Secretary of the Association is one Mr. Dilip Chandra Goswami Page No.# 9/14 and the said person had applied for registration under the Trade Unions Act on 27.02.2019. However, the resolution adopted in the meeting held on 12.08.2018, which was submitted before the Registrar of Firms and Societies, the Secretary of the Association appears to be one Mr. Jitu Barman, who applied for registration on 05.10.2018, on the basis of that resolution and an association cannot project two different Secretaries appointed/elected in one meeting.
8.4. Further observation of the learned Labour Court is that the appellant/petitioner amongst many points in his injunction petition, has mainly stressed on the point that the petitioner/appellant is the representative for the State of Assam and ordinary member with the All India Organization of Chemist and Druggist and that membership to the said organization required a registration. Thus, if the cancellation is given effect to, there is possibility that the same may lead to cessation of the petitioner's/appellant's membership in the national body. The respondent/opposite party in his reply stated that the requirement of registration for enrolment as ordinary member of All India Organization of Chemists and Druggist does not entitle the petitioner to obtain registration by fraudulent means under the Trade Unions Act.
8.5. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court went on to observe that perusal of the case record reveals that vide order dated 07.09.2023, the learned Labour Court was pleased to grant an order of stay in favour of the petitioner/appellant considering their urgency to take part in the ensuing election process of the National Trade Union meet amongst all other points as contended by the petitioner in the injunction petition. A meticulous scrutiny of the documents available on the record, such as the minutes of the two meetings, dated 12.08.2018, involves signatures of many members who attended the meeting and who are yet to be physically examined as witnesses in the main appeal.
Page No.# 10/14 Furthermore, the petitioner/appellant is yet to adduce his evidence-on-affidavit and all other vital documents, such as the original proceeding books of the meeting held along with the minutes of the meeting in order to establish his claim and to prove the legality and validity of the documents and that apart, an injunction is an equitable remedy and shall be granted if the right being protected is clear, unquestioned and substantial and in the present case though the court in its initial stage of the proceeding had passed an order of injunction in favour of the appellant/petitioner, but after receipt of notice the respondent/opposite party has duly appeared before the court with substantial documents and legitimate pleadings and has put forward many mixed questions of law and facts with regard to the validity and legality of the claims of the appellant/petitioner which requires proper adjudication and trial for a decision to be arrived by the court.
8.6. The learned Labour Court also observed that before considering the submission of the appellant/petitioner the moot question involved in the petition for injunction appears to be the main issue and dispute involved in the main appeal, which requires proper and meticulous scrutiny of documents and evidences of witnesses. Thereafter, considering the nature of the dispute and the pleadings of both side, discloses many mixed questions of facts which require proper adjudication in the original appeal, i.e. Appeal No. 01/2023, on proper appreciation of evidences and personal appearances of witnesses by both sides, as there some vital persons' names are involved in connection with order dated 30.08.2023.
9. Thus, it appears that though the learned Labour Court had discussed the principles of granting injunction, yet, it has not recorded a definite finding regarding presence or absence of prima-facie case, balance of convenience and Page No.# 11/14 irreparable loss in favour of or against the appellant/petitioner herein. It has cancelled the order on the ground that without proper appreciation of evidence and examination of witnesses, involved in the main appeal, further extension of stay order/injunction order, would cause delay in conducting expedite trial of the appeal.
9.1. But, there is no indication in the impugned order dated 21.02.2025, that because of the interim/stay/injunction order, the trial in the appeal got delayed. Whereas, the impugned order indicates that the learned Labour Court has observed that the respondent/opposite party entered appearance on receipt of the notice and put forwarded many mix questions of facts and law with regard to the legality and validity of the claim of the appellant/petitioner, which requires proper adjudication and trial for a decision to be arrived at by the said court. That being so, vacation of the impugned order of stay dated 07.09.2023, by the impugned order dated 21.02.2025, to the considered opinion of this court fails to withstand the legal scrutiny, if the same is considered in the light of the submissions so advanced by learned counsel for both the parties in this civil revision petition.
10. It is being pointed out by Mr. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner that there are civil consequences on vacation of the stay order and as the petitioner association is a trade union with more than 5000 members and affiliated to the national body and in the event of cancellation of its representation, it will be de- recognized by the parent body. Mr. Deka further pointed out that even if the impugned order is continued till disposal of the appeal, the respondent No. 1, i.e. the Registrar of Trade Unions, would not suffer any prejudice, and there appears to be substance in the same.
Page No.# 12/14
11. In the case of Mool Chand Yadav (Supra), referred by Mr. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner, Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that if the orders are challenged and the appeals are pending, one cannot permit a swinging pendulum continuously taking place during the pendency of the appeal and judicial approach requires that during the pendency of the appeal, the operation of an order having serious civil consequences must be suspended, more so, when the appeal is admitted. Relevant observation is quoted as under:-
"4. We heard Mr S.N. Kacker, learned counsel for the appellants, and the respondents appeared by Caveat through Mr Manoj Swarup, Advocate. We are not inclined to examine any contention on merits at present, but we would like to take notice of the emerging situation if the operation of the order under appeal is not suspended during the pendency of the appeal. If the FAFO is allowed obviously Mool Chand Yadav would be entitled to continue in possession. Now, if the order is not suspended in order to avoid any action in contempt pending the appeal, Mool Chand Yadav would have to vacate the room and hand over the possession to the respondents in obedience to the Court's order. We are in full agreement with Mr Manoj Swarup, learned Advocate for respondents, that the Court's order cannot be flouted and even a covert disrespect to Court's order cannot be tolerated. But if orders are challenged and the appeals are pending, one cannot permit a swinging pendulum continuously taking place during the pendency of the appeal. Mr Manoj Swarup may be wholly right in submitting that there is intentional flouting of the Court's order. We are not interdicting that finding. But judicial approach requires that during the pendency of the appeal the operation of an order having serious civil consequences must be suspended. More so when appeal is admitted.
Page No.# 13/14 ................................................................................................."
12. In view of the aforementioned proposition of law, while there are civil consequences on vacation of the impugned order, after admission of appeal and also after recording a finding that there involved mix questions of facts about legality and validity, which require proper adjudication and trial, for arriving at a finding by the learned Labour Court and as such, the impugned order dated 21.02.2025, so passed by the learned Labour Court, appears to be arbitrary and illegal and therefore, this court is inclined to interfere with the same by exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
13. I have carefully gone through the decisions referred by Mr. Chakraborty, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and also I have considered his submissions in the light of the proposition of the said decisions. There is no quarrel at the bar about the proposition of law laid down in the cases referred by Mr. Chakravarty. But, in the given facts and circumstances on the record, the same would not come to his assistance.
14. In the result, I find sufficient merit in this civil revision petition and accordingly, the same stands allowed. The impugned orders passed by the learned Labour Court, dated 10.02.2025 and 21.02.2025, stand set aside and quashed.
14.1. On the other hand, in view of aforesaid discussion and finding, specially taking note of the ratio laid down in the case of Mool Chand Yadav (Supra), I find the I.A.(C) No. 2182 of 2025, devoid of merit and accordingly, the same stands dismissed.
15. Before parting with the record, this court is inclined to observe that this Page No.# 14/14 court has not expressed any opinion on merit of the appeal pending before the learned Labour Court. Whatever observation is made herein above, is only for the purpose of disposal of the present Civil Revision Petition and also the I.A.(C) No. 2182 of 2025. The learned Labour Court shall proceed to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as practicable, without being influenced by the observation made herein above.
16. In terms of above, this civil revision petition stands disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant