Bombay High Court
Tata Electric Companies Officers Guild vs Registrar Of Trade Unions on 5 February, 1993
Equivalent citations: [1994(68)FLR656], (1994)ILLJ125BOM
JUDGMENT
V.A. Mehta J.
1. Rule, returnable forthwith, Heard.
2. The petitioner is a trade union duly registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. The respondent, the Registrar of Trade Unions, issued a notice dated May 14, 1982 under Section 10(b) of the Act calling upon the petitioner of the petitioner-Union should not be cancelled as the petitioner had failed to submit annual returns as per law. The petitioner gave a reply stating that due to misunderstanding about the accounting year, the annual returns for the period ending March 31, 1991 along with the certificate of auditor. This explanation was followed by communication dated June 26, 1992 along with annual returns ending December 31, 1991. After long gap of six months, the Registrar passed the impugned order of cancellation of registration on the sole ground that the explanation given by the Trade Union was not satisfactory. Aggrieved thereby, this petition has been filed.
3. Now Section 10 provides for the ground on which registration can be cancelled or withdrawn. One of them, is wilful contravention of provision of the Act, that too after notice from the Registrar. Initial mistake to submit annual returns for the wrong accounting year was correct as soon as it was brought to the notice of the petitioner. Impugned order has been passed long after the mistake was corrected in the background, it cannot be aid that the contravention was wilful and after notice.
4. The Scheme of Section 10 is that for canceling the registration of the Trade Union for contravention must be wilful and after notice from the Registrar and two months previous notice specifying the ground of proposed cancellation must have been issued. It does not appear that these requirements of the provisions have been complied with before passing the impugned order. In this context, useful reference may be made to case of Mysore Iron and Steal Workers, Labourers' Association v. Commissioner of Labour and Registrar of Trade Unions, Bangalore, 1972 LIC 799 wherein a similar view of Section 10 has been taken.
5. Having regard to the whole background, the impugned order cannot be legally justified at all. The only vague reason given in the order is that the explanation for filling incorrect annual returns earlier was not satisfactory without giving indications as to how and why.
6. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs.