Dismissed

The Registrar of Trade Unions (Labour Commissioner), v. the Social Democratic Trade Union

Kerala HC25 Jul 2024WP(C)/16270/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Registrar and Deputy Registrar of Trade Unions challenged the Labour Court's order allowing an appeal against their cancellation of a trade union's registration, alleging misrepresentation in its application. The High Court held that registration was not obtained by fraud or misrepresentation and dismissed the writ petition, relying on D'Souza R.G.

What the court decided

AI extract

The Registrar of Trade Unions (Labour… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 25^TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 3RD SRAVANA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 16270 OF 2023

¶5

PETITIONERS:

¶6

1 THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS (LABOUR COMMISSIONER), OFFICE OF THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

2 THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS (DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER), CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE

¶8

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC TRADE UNION, THAZHATTU BUILDING, PUTHIYARA ROAD, NEAR AGRICULTURE BANK, PUTHIYARA, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673004 REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, MR.NOUSHAD MANGALASSERY.

¶11

2 THE LABOUR COURT, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673004

¶12

BY ADVS. SRI.M.ASOKAN, R1 SRI.P.K.IBRAHIM SMT.K.P.AMBIKA SRI.SREEJI K.B.

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23.07.2024 AND THE COURT ON 25.07.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

W.P.(C) No.16270/2023

: 2 :

N. NAGARESH, J.

Dated this the 25^th day of July, 2024

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¶21

The Registrar and the Deputy Registrar of Trade Unions are the petitioners in this writ petition. They are aggrieved by Ext.P10 order dated 31.05.2022 of the Labour Court, Kozhikode in TUA.1/2022. By Ext.P10, the Labour Court, Kozhikode held that the order dated 03.11.2021 of the Deputy Registrar of Trade Unions cancelling the registration of the appellant-Trade Union is illegal.

¶22

The Government Pleader representing the petitioners submitted that the 1^st respondent-Trade Union submitted Ext.P1 application for registration under the Trade Unions Act. The 1^st respondent-Union was registered as a Trade Union as per Ext.P2 Certificate of Registration dated

¶23

W.P.(C) No.16270/2023

¶24

: 3 :

¶25

19.03.2013. The petitioners state that later they came to understand that the 1^st respondent is not a Union representing workers of any particular Trade / Industry / Establishment. As per Ext.P3 bye-laws, the objectives of the 1^st respondent are not limited to the workers of one Trade / Establishment / Industry.

¶26

The 2^nd petitioner therefore issued Ext.P4 notice dated 11.02.2016 to the 1^st respondent proposing cancellation of Certificate of Registration granted. In Ext.P4, the 2^nd petitioner stated that the registration was obtained by the 1^st respondent by misrepresentation of facts. The 1^st respondent submitted Ext.P6 reply. Ext.P6 reply was not satisfactory. The 2^nd petitioner hence passed Ext.P7 order dated 03.11.2021 cancelling the registration of the 1^st respondent.

¶27

The 1^st respondent thereupon filed Ext.P8 TUA.1/2022 invoking Section 11 of the Trade Unions Act. The petitioners state that the Labour Court, without properly appreciating the facts and without providing sufficient

¶28

W.P.(C) No.16270/2023

¶29

: 4 :

¶30

opportunity to the petitioners, passed Ext.P10 order allowing the appeal. Ext.P10 order is patently illegal and is liable to be interfered with, contended the Government Pleader.

¶31

The Government Pleader representing the petitioners submitted that in terms of the Trade Unions Act, a Trade Union has to be of workers of one or more particular Trade / Industry / Establishment. The 1^st respondent, in their application, did not divulge as to the Trades / Industries / Establishments in which the 1^st respondent-Union is functioning. The Government Pleader submitted that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.10129/2010 is not applicable to the facts of the case. The said case deals with registration/cancellation before the Amendment Act, 2001 which came into force with effect from 09.01.2002. Ext.P10 order is therefore liable to be set aside.

¶32

The 1^st respondent resisted the writ petition filing a counter affidavit. The 1^st respondent pointed out that their application was resubmitted after curing all defects. All necessary supporting documents accompanied the

¶33

W.P.(C) No.16270/2023

¶34

: 5 :

¶35

application. Registration was granted to the 1^st respondentUnion after due enquiry by the Assistant Labour Officer. The 2^nd petitioner, after scrutinising the documents, found that registration can be granted to the 1^st respondent under the head “Others”.

¶36

The 1^st respondent-Union has been working since then, organising workers in various Trades. It has participated in referendums conducted by various establishments. The allegation of the petitioners that registration was granted by misrepresentation has been emphatically denied by the 1^st respondent.

¶37

The counsel for the 1^st respondent relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in D'Souza R.G. v. Poona Employees Union and another [(2015) 2 SCC 526] and contended that the Trade Unions Act permits the authority to cancel the registration of a Trade Union if it is obtained by fraud or mistake, but does not permit the authority to cancel the Certificate of Registration if the same is granted by mistake due to incorrect assessment or non

¶38

W.P.(C) No.16270/2023

¶39

: 6 :

¶40

application of mind or mechanical act on the part of the authority.

¶41

I have heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel representing the 1^st respondent.

¶42

The 1^st respondent was granted Certificate of Registration dated 19.03.2013, as is evident from Ext.P2. In Ext.P1 application for registration, the 1^st respondent stated that it is a “Union of workers engaged in the general workers in Kerala State”. The petitioners later found that the 1^st respondent has not divulged the particular trade in which the Union is to function. Therefore, the petitioners issued Exts.P4 and P5 notices under Section 10 of the Trade Unions Act proposing to cancel the certificate of registration. By Ext.P7 order dated 03.11.2021, the registration was cancelled holding that the application for registration submitted by the 1^st respondent contained incorrect information.

¶43

W.P.(C) No.16270/2023

¶44

: 7 :

¶45

The 1^st respondent filed TUA.1/2022 invoking

¶46

Section 11 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926, in the Labour Court, Kozhikode. The Labour Court, relying on the judgment in D'Souza R.G. (supra), held that the Registrar either by mistake or due to incorrect assessment or non application of mind may have issued a Certificate of Registration to the 1^st respondent. Cancellation of registration of the appellant on that ground is invalid. The petitioners are challenging Ext.P10 order in TUA.1/2022.

¶47

Ext.P1 application submitted by the 1^st respondent

¶48

for registration as a Trade Union would show that the 1^st respondent intended to function in the trade of “general workers in Kerala State”. The petitioners have granted Ext.P2 Certificate of Registration based on Ext.P1 application. Subsequently, the petitioners found that a Trade Union statutorily has to function in any particular Trades / Establishments. But, that cannot be a reason to arrive at a conclusion that the 1^st respondent has obtained Certificate of Registration by misrepresentation of facts.

¶49

W.P.(C) No.16270/2023

¶50

: 8 :

¶51

Section 10 of the Trade Unions Act, 1956 enables withdrawal or cancellation of Certificate of Registration of a Trade Union by the Registrar of Trade Unions. Section 10 permits the authority to cancel the registration of a Trade Union, if it is obtained by fraud or mistake. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment in D'Souza R.G. (supra) has categorically held that Section 10 does not permit the authority to cancel the Certificate of Registration, if the same is granted by mistake due to incorrect assessment.

¶52

Taking into consideration the facts of the case, I find that the Labour Court, Kozhikode has properly appreciated the law and facts while passing Ext.P10 order. Ext.P10 order cannot be said to be suffering from any error or illegality.

¶53

The writ petition is therefore dismissed.

¶54

Sd/-

¶55

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE

¶56

aks/23.07.2024

¶57

W.P.(C) No.16270/2023

¶58

: 9 :

¶59

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16270/2023

¶60

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶61

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF THE ABOVE APPLICATION DATED 24.12.2012 IN FORM A
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF TRADE UNIONS DATED 19.03.2013
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF THE UNDATED BY LAWS CONCERNING THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF A NOTICE DATED 11.02.2016 ISSUED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE 1ST PETITIONER
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY OF A NOTICE DATED 03.06.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY/EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER
Exhibit P7	TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 03.11.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER CANCELLING THE REGISTRATION OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P8	TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 30.03.2022 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH TYPED COPY.
Exhibit P9	TRUE COPY OF THE UNDATED WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT LABOUR COURT IN TUA 1/2022
Exhibit P10	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
	31.05.2022 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN TUA NO.1/2022

¶62

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

¶63

EXHIBIT-R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER RECEIPT BY THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER KOZHIKODE

¶64

W.P.(C) No.16270/2023

¶65

: 10 :

¶66

EXHIBIT-R1(B)	TRUE COPY OF THE	FORWARDING LETTER
	NO.777/2012 DATED	01.03.2013 OF THE
	ASSISTANT LABOUR OF THE 2ND PETITIONER	FICER, KOZHIKODE TO
EXHIBIT-R1(C)	TRUE COPY OF THE F AT THE OFFICE OF OBTAINED UNDER RTI	ILE NOTE MAINTAINED THE 2ND PETITIONER ACT
EXHIBIT-R1(D)	TRUE COPIES OF THE	FRONT PAGES OF THE
	RETURNS OF THE YEAR ENDORSING ITS RECE	S FROM 2013 TO 2021 IPT BY THE DISTRICT
	LABOUR OFFICER, KOZ	HIKODE

The Registrar of Trade Unions (Labour Commissioner), v. the Social Democratic Trade Union

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

The Registrar of Trade Unions (Labour Commissioner), v. the Social Democratic Trade Union

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The General Secretary, Kerala Uranma Devaswom Board Vs v.Gopalakrishnan

Mujeeb K.I Vs Mundakkayam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd., Represented by Its Manager

Anil Kumar Vs the Sub Registrar

Minu P. v Vs Thevalakkara Farmer'S Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. No. 4047 Thevalakkara

Siby Mathew Vs State of Kerala

The Managing Director Vs Joy Mathew