MUKESHBHAI DASHRATHBHAI CHOKSHI Vs. RAMANLAL DAHYABHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 2.11.2015 passed by the Industrial Tribunal ('the Tribunal') in Appeal (TU) No. 1 of 2014 whereby the Tribunal set aside the order dated 26.2.2014 of the Deputy Registrar, Trade Unions, cancelling the registration of the Textile Labour Association (Majoor Mahajan Sangh) and directed to hold election of the Union within three months from the date of its order.

(2.) It appears that the Deputy Registrar, Trade Union had issued notice dated 31.7.2013 to respondent No.1- President of the Union stating that his office has taken serious note as regards non-implementing the orders of his office, of continuing unauthorisedly elected representatives of closed mill, of continuing representatives who were relieved from service of the mill, and of not calling regular meetings of the committee members and if such illegal activities go on, action for cancellation of the registration of the Union shall be required to be taken. By the said notice, respondent No.1 was asked to explain within five days as to why registration of the Union should not be cancelled. It appears that the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 then provided explanation by their reply dated 25.9.2013. However, again notice dated 27.1.2014 was issued alleging commission of different irregularities by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and to explain within seven days as to why registration of the Union should not be cancelled. It was thereafter, the Deputy Registrar passed order dated 26.2.2014 cancelling the registration of the Union. Such order was challenged by respondent Nos.1 to 3-the office bearers of the Union by filing appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal by the impugned order.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr. Acharya for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal interfered with the order of the Deputy Registrar on nonexistent ground. Mr. Acharya submitted that the Tribunal committed serious error in holding that before cancellation of the registration, no clear two months' notice was served as required by the provisions of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 ('the Act'). Mr. Acharya submitted that after first notice dated 31.7.2013 calling for explanation to cancel registration of the Union, more than two months time had passed and on being dissatisfied with the explanation provided by the Union, further notice dated 27.1.2014 for various irregularities was also issued to the Union and it was thereafter, on finding that the office bearers of the Union were not functioning as per the constitution of the Union and were indulging into financial irregularities, the order for cancellation of the registration came to be passed. Mr. Acharya submitted that since the above process undertaken by the Registrar was after giving sufficient opportunities by the notices for more than two months' of time, the Tribunal was not justified in holding that there was no clear notice of two months for taking action of cancellation of the registration of the Union. Mr. Acharya submitted that in any case, the Deputy Registrar after hearing the representatives of the Union, having come to the conclusion that the office bearers have been indulging into various kinds of irregularities, committed no error in cancelling the registration of the Union and unless there was any perversity in the finding arrived at by the Deputy Registrar, it was not open to the Tribunal to interfere with the order for cancellation of the registration of the Union.