ORDER
1. Questioning the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 30-10-1989, whereby the Certificate of Registration of the Petitioner-Trade Union was cancelled under Section 10(b) of the Trade Union Act, 1926 (for short ‘the Act’), the present writ petition has been filed.
2. In response to Rule Nisi, counter affidavit has been filed stating that the office of the 1st respondent has got jurisdiction to cancel the Registration Certificate of the
petitioner-trade union under Section 10(b) of the Act. The 1st respondent issued noticed dated 6-7-1989 to the petitioner asking it to show-cause why the Certificate of Registration shall not be cancelled. Even after receipt of the notice the petitioner-trade union has not chosen to file any explanation. Therefore, the impugned order dated 30-10-1989, cancelling the Registration Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner-trade union, has been passed. The petitioner made a representation to the first respondent for setting aside the cancellation order. The first respondent has not passed any order on the representation of the petitioner on the ground that he has no power to revoke the impugned order. Hence, the present writ petition.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner-trade union contended that the impugned order itself reveals that the notice sent to the petitioner was returned with postal shera “no such General Secretary exist at the address”. Learned Counsel submits that since from the formation of Rangareddy District, the petitioner-trade union is filing the returns every year before the Commissioner of Labour, Rangareddy District. Therefore, cancellation of Registration Certificate on the ground that the petitioner-trade union has not filed returns is unwarranted.
4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that it is the bounden duty of the petitioner-trade union to file returns every year, otherwise every executive of the trade union shall be punishable with fine for such default. In addition to that, the authorities can always cancel the Registration Certificate under Section 10(b) of the Act for continuous default of filing the returns.
5. Admittedly, proviso to Section 10(b) says provided that not less than 2 months prior notice in writing specifying
the ground on which he is proposed to withdraw or cancel the certificate shall be given by the Registrar to the Trade Union before the Certificate is withdrawn or cancelled, otherwise than on the application of the trade union. In the present case, no such notice was served on to the petitioner-trade union. Apart from that, cancellation of Registration Certificate can be ordered only for intentional violation of any provisions of the Act or Rule.
6. A Division Bench of the Bombay
High Court in Saraswat Co-operative Bank Employees Union v. Stale of Maharashra, held that in order to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 10(b) of the Act, there must be material before the Registrar, that the trade union should have wilfully contravened any provisions of the Act or any Rule.
7. Similarly in T.M.H. Workers Union v. Madukar S. Wani, the Bombay High Court held that the extreme penalty of cancellation of registration of the majority trade union for the alleged default or irregularities, alleged to have been committed, is not proportionate under the Act.
8. It is seen from the record that the petitioner-trade union filed its returns every year before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Rangareddy District. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has wilfully contravened any of the provisions of the Act, which invited extreme penalty of cancellation of Registration Certificate.
9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is allowed with no order as to costs. However, this order shall not preclude the first respondent to take action against the petitioner-Trade Union in accordance with law.