Disposed

Facor Alloys Ltd. v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC17 Apr 2023WP/5713/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Andhra Pradesh directed the Registrar of Trade Unions to consider representations from a company regarding the cancellation of a union's registration and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks, noting a failure to provide a speaking order previously.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 4th respondent to consider pending representations and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks receiving the order copy.

Facor Alloys Ltd. Vs the State of… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY. THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

|
|

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 5713 OF 2023

¶9

Between:

¶10

SSLoS Assistant General Manager (Personal and and Administration) Thadi Kamalakara Rao S/o Late Krishna Rao, Age 59 years B-6 B- SShra PraSSh V'^’^nagaram District

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

ANO

¶13

lXu? A R®P?yits Principal Secretary Department of Pradesh 522 238 *Amaravathi Guntur District. Andhra

¶14

Q S® *-abour. Mangalagiri. Guntur District Andhra Pradesh PradestCsaoTie'^^'^"®'^ Labour, Akkayyapalem. Visakhapatnam Andhra

¶15

vEdanaXmASraPrateh

¶16

its General Manager Rajana Ramana S/o Appala

¶17

Pradesh^535 W? Ganvidi Vizianagaram District Andhra

¶18

1. Appala Swamy Occ General Secretary Facor Labour

¶19

Pradesh 535^01^° Vizianagaram District Andhra

¶20

...RESPONDENTS

¶21

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the [®sP®'y?®'^t herein in not considering the representations submitted on behalf of the petitioner company last being representation dated 13-02-2023, is arbitrary Illegal and in violation of well settled principles of natural justice.

¶22

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶23

direct lhe ^4*^^ TPS’? PeUtion"the High Cou^maTbl^pteasTd to direct the 4 respondent to consider the representations of the petitioner

¶24

including the last representation dated 13-02-2023, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI. GHANTA SRIDHAR

¶26

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LABOUR

¶27

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶28

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶29

Writ Petition No.5713 of 2023

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

The present writ petition came to be filed under Article 226

¶32

of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶33

“....to issue a Writ order or directions more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction on the part of the 4"" respondent herein in not considering the representations submitted on behalf of the petitioner company last being representation dated 13.02.2023. is arbitrary, illegal and in violation ofwell settled principles ofnaturaljustice....” 2. The case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner is a company having been registered under the Companies Act, 2013, manufacturing various ferrous alloy products by duly engaging number of employees on regular basis as well as contract basis. The 6‘h respondent herein was appointed as a Trainee Operator in the year 1989 and after completion of training, he was continued as a Crane Operator till the date of dismissal from his service on the ground of serious misdemeanors while working as a crane operator.

¶34

Initially, the 6^^ respondent made an application to the 4*^ respondent to register-the 5th respondent as Trade Union, but, the application was rejected on the ground that the certificate produced by them showing the strength of the Union is less than 10% of the entire strength.

¶35

¶36

Thereafter the 6*^ respondent has resubmitted the application by showing names of the contract labour supplied by the service provider who were not in the rolls of the petitioner company and obtained the registration. As per which, it is clear that the 6^^ respondent obtained registration by playing fraud on the competent authority i.e. the 4*^ respondent. After the said registration of the 5* respondent Trade Union, the respondent while playing the role of a General Secretary has created problems by raising frivolous litigations and made the petitioner company to close entire industry' for a period of three years. As soon as the petitioner company noticed the registration of the 5*^ respondent Trade Union, the petitioner company subrnitted a representation dated 15.12.2013 bringing it to the notice of the 4**» respondent, the aforesaid circumstances and requested the 4^^ respondent to cancel the registration of the 5^^ respondent Trade Union formed by the 6*^ respondent. As there was no response from the 4’** respondent, the petitioner has made representations on 22.10.2016 and 12.09.2019, but the 4*** respondent did not consider to choose the same.

¶37

5. The main grievance of the petitioner is that, the 6^^ respondent being a dismissed employee got the registration of the 5*** respondent Trade Union without having minimum percentage

¶38

¶39

of the employee membership and failed to file returns of the membership and has been creating disputes for achieving his personal objects and tried to close down the industry itself and further stated that the S*** respondent is involved in various criminal cases. As there was no response, the petitioner company has. filed a latest representation on 30.02.2023 and filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to consider the representation made by the petitioner company.

¶40

The learned Government Pleader for Labour has filed a copy ! of the instructions of the Deputy Commissioner of -Labour/4th respondent herein dated 04.04.2023 wherein it is admitted that the. petitioner has submitted the representations to the 4th respondent on 16.12.2013, 22.10.2016, 12.09.2019 and as well as the latest representation dated 30.02.2023 seeking the cancellation of the registration of the 5* respondent as it was registered without any substantive records or proofs to initiate action on his representations. In order to invoke cancellation or withdrawal of registration under Section 10 of the Trade Union Act, there must be sufficient material before the Registrar that the trade union concerned should have wilfully contravened certain provisions of the Act and Rules.

¶41

¶42

Further, it is stated that there must be some material before the Registrar that the Trade Union should have wilfully contravened the certain provisions of the Act and Rules but in the present case, the 5* respondent Trade Union have been submitting the annual returns in Form-E under the A.P. Trade Union Regulations up to the year ending 2022 and the 5* respondent was also allowed for participating in the union election along with other two Trade Unions of the petitioner company in the year 2017 and secured 47 votes out of 267 total votes.

¶43

Learned counsel for the 4‘h respondent has relied upon a judgment in the case of Saraswat Co-operative Bank Employees Union Vs State of Maharastra [1996 (74) FLR 1945], wherein, the relevant portion of the order is extracted below;

¶44

“2. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in order to invoke the cancellation of the registration, the Registrar is empowered to cancel the registration under Section 10 of the Trade Unions Act only if there are enough materials to establish that the petitioner commits any wilful act offraud or commits any contravention of the provisions of the Act etc. We see considerable force in his contention. Section 10 of the Act reads as follows :

¶45

"10. Cancellation of registration - A certificate of registration of . Trade Union may be withdrawn or cancelled by the Registrar-

¶46

¶47

' ?=•

¶48

(a) on the application of the Trade Union to be verified in Such manner as may be prescribed, or

¶49

(b) if the Registrar is satisfied that the certificate has been obtained by fraud or mistake, or that the Trade Union has ceased to exist or has wilfully and after notice from the Registrar contravened any provision of this Act or allowed any rule to continue in force which is inconsistent with any such provision or has rescinded any rule providing for any matter, provisionfor which is required by Section 6:

¶50

Provided that not less than two month's previous notice in writing specifying the ground on which it 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." .

¶51

¶52

As per the instructions furnished by the 4* respondent dated 04.04.2023, it appears that the representations submitted by the petitioner on 16.12.2013, 22.10.2016, 12.09.2019 and the latest representation dated 30.02.2023 could not be considered in order to invoke cancellation or withdrawal of the registration under Section 10 of the Trade Union Act. There must be sufficient material before the Registrar that the Trade Union concerned which is sought to be cancelled should have wilfully contravened the certain provisions of the Act and the Rules. But, however, the representations made by the petitioner are not disposed of by way

¶53

¶54

of a speaking order so as to give the petitioner an opportunity to produce relevant documents necessary in support of his case.

¶55

. In view of the same, instead of going into merits of this case, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition by directing the 4*^ respondent to consider the representations made by the petitioner on 16.12.2013, 22.10.2016, 12.09.2019 and the latest representation being dated 30.02.2023 and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, in accordance with law. 11. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶56

• Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, in this Writ Petition

¶57

shall stand closed.

¶58

¶59

Sd/- P.VINOD KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶60

SECTION OFFICER

¶61

jj, SECTION OFFICER 1. The Princi^l Secretary Department of Labour A.P Secretariat,Velagapudi Amaravathi Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh 522 238.

¶62

1. The Commissioner of Labour, Mangalagiri. Guntur District Andhra Pradesh 3. Prad£l?530 016'^^'°^^'^ Labour, Akkayyapalem. Visakhapatnam Andhra

¶63

The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Back side of NCS Theatre Vizianagaram Andhra Pradesh

¶64

Facor Labour Unirm, Rep.by its General Manager Rajana Ramana S/o Appala Pradesh^535 10? Sriram Nagar, Garividi Vizianagaram District Andhra

¶65

Rajana Ramana S/O Appala Swamy Occ General Secretary Facor Labour Garividi Vizianagaram District Andhra

¶66

I raQGSn iUj

¶67

One CC to Sri. Ghanta Sridhar, Advocate [OPUC] 9 Two CD^CopiesGP for Labour. ^'9^High GourtCourt ofof AndhraAndhra Pradesh.Pradesh. [OUT][OUT]

KRK gl

HIGH COURT

DATED:17/04/2023

ORDER

WP.No.5713 of 2023
U.
1.

¶74

%
0 5 SEP 2023
Current Section
^SPATCV*g!

¶75

DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

Facor Alloys Ltd. v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Facor Alloys Ltd. v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.P. Grampanchayat Employees and Vs The State of A.P.

Pullela Sathya Ramalinga Sastry, S/o Subrahmanya Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Orsu Sreenivasa Rao Vs The State of Andha Pradesh

Sri Ramanjaneya Constructions and Lifters, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

V.V.S.N. Murthy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Reddy Renuka Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh