RADHEYSHYAM SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. BATA MAZDOOR UNION AND ANOTHER AND REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNION AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is directed against an order passed by the Additional District Judge I, Patna, by which he sent back the case to the Registrar of Trade Unions for passing an order afresh after following the provisions contained in Sec. 10(b) of the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The short facts are these. By an order dated the 18th November, 1970 the Registrar of Trade Unions, Bihar, cancelled the certificate of registration of the Bata Mazdoor Union, Patna, under Sec. 10(b) of the Act. The ground for the cancellation was that the said Union had wilfully refused Radhey Shyam Singh, Indra Prasad and Satyendra Narain Singh of the Bata Shoe Factory, Digha, to enrol them as members of the Union and had thus contravened the provisions of Sec. 21 of the Act. It appears that a notice had been given to the Union to show cause and their show cause was not found satisfactory. Against the said order, the Union filed an appeal under Sec. 11(1) of the Act before the District Judge, Patna, which was numbered as Miscellaneous Appeal no. 137/70 of 1970/1973. Another Miscellaneous Appeal no. 11 of 1971 was filed by some members of the Union against the said order of the Registrar which has not yet been disposed of. Miscellaneous Appeal no. 137/70 of 1970/1973 was finally heard by the Additional District Judge, Patna, who set aside the order of cancellation of the registration of the Union and remitted the matter back to the Registrar for passing an order in accordance with Sec. 10(b) of the Act. The learned Additional District Judge held that the alleged contravention of the provisions of the Act by a trade union has to be after a notice from the Registrar as contemplated under Sec. 10(b) of the Act and that, admittedly, not having done, the order passed by the Registrar was bad. The workman, viz, Radhey Shyam Singh and two others, who had been refused membership and had made a complaint before the Registrar, being aggrieved by the order of the learned Additional District Judge, have come up to this Court in revision.

(2.) Shri Guru Bachan Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that only one notice is required under Sec. 10(b) of the Act as contemplated by the proviso to this Section. According to him, no notice is required to be given before any provision of the Act is contravened.

(3.) The only question, therefore, which arises for consideration in this case is as to whether the two months previous notice as provided for in the proviso to Sec. 10(b) is sufficient before withdrawing or cancelling the certificate registration of the Trade Union.