MYSORE IRON AND STEEL WORKS LABOURERS ASSOCIATION Vs. COMMISSIONER OF I ABOUR AND REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS IN MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred under S.11(4) of the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926 by the Mysore Iron and Steel Works Labourers Association by its Secretary, A. Nagaraj. The appellant was a trade union registered under the provisions of the Indian Trade Unions Act 1926, hereinafter referred to as the Act. By the order dated 21st December, 1965 passed under S.10(b) of the Act, the respondent-the Commissioner of Labour and Registrar of Trade Unions in Mysore, Bangalore cancelled the registration of the appellant-trade union. The appellant being aggrieved by the said order of the respondent, preferred an aopeal under S.11(1) (b) of the Act to the Court of the District Judge at Shimoga. The learned District Judge having dismissed the appeal, this miscellaneous second appeal has been preferred by the appellant under S.11(4) of the Act.

(2.) Sri Kadidal Manjappa, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that the learned District Judge committed an error of law in holding that the appeal presented before him by the Mysore Iron and Steel Works Labourers "Association was not maintainable. The learned District Judge has taken the view that after the cancellation of registration of the trade union, the trade union was not competent to prefer an appeal under S.11(l) of the Act. S.11 (1) of the Act reads as follows :

(3.) The view taken by the learned District Judge is that as by the order appealed against, the registration of the trade union was cancelled, the trade union whose registration was so cancelled, was not ' an aggrieved person' who could prefer an appeal under S.ll of the Act. The learned District Judge has also observed that the expression ' person aggrieved' used in S.11 does not include within its ambit a 'juridical person'. I find it very difficult to agree with this proposition. The expression ' person' not having been denned in the Act, we have to look for its definition under the General Clauses Act. S.3(42) of the General Clauses Act defines a 'person' as follows: " 'person' shall include any company or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not". The expression 'person' is therefore, wide enough to include within its ambit a 'juridical person'. I also do not agree with the view of the learned District Judge that the appellant whose registration was cancelled by the Registrar is not 'an aggueved person' within the meaning of that expression occurring in S.11 of the Act. S.10 of the Act empowers the Registrar to cancel registration if the conditions mentioned in that section are satisfied.