The action of the Deputy Registrar of Trade Unions and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Sangareddy (hereinafter called the “Registrar”), in cancelling the registration certificate of the petitioner-trade union vide proceedings dated 13.06.2013, is under challenge in this Writ Petition as being arbitrary, illegal, and in violation of the provisions of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (for brevity, ‘the Act’). A consequential direction is sought to the third respondent to conduct an enquiry as per law after giving the petitioner-union an opportunity of being heard.

The petitioner Union submitted an application dated 02.10.2012, for registration of their Trade Union, under Regulation 3 of the A.P. Trade Unions Regulations, 1927. The said application was received by the office of the Registrar on 16.10.2012. The Registrar issued a Certificate of Registration of the Trade Union, in Form-C in terms of the Regulation 5(1), bearing No.A/T.U/99/2012 dated 18.10.2012. Soon thereafter, on 25.10.2012 and 26.10.2012, 88 workers of the 4th respondent submitted individual letters informing the 3rd respondent that they were not the members of the Union, their I.D. Cards and other documents were obtained without their knowledge and were used for the purpose of registration of the Trade Union. The 4th respondent submitted a representation on 29.10.2012 informing the 3rd respondent that over 60 workers, whose names were found in the resolution alleged to have been passed by the petitioner Union, had submitted representations to the Management that they had no knowledge of the registration of the Union by the so called office bearers; a fraud was played on them by persons claiming to be union office bearers, while submitting papers for registration to the office of the Registrar, which needed urgent enquiry to ascertain the real facts; and a proper enquiry should be made regarding membership of the petitioner Union, and their registration cancelled. The 4th respondent requested that registration of the petitioner Union be kept under suspension pending disposal of the enquiry, as they foresaw the possibility of clashes between the petitioner union and the other faction of workers which would cause unrest and disturbance in the factory. Enclosed to the said letter of the 4th respondent were copies of the representations of 88 workmen.

On receipt of the said representation, the Registrar issued notice dated 15.11.2012 informing the petitioner that 88 individual workers had represented that their signatures were misrepresented/forged and some of them were forced to join the union; and notice was being given to them as he intended to proceed, on or after 60 days of service of the notice, to cancel the certificate of registration, for the reasons given therein, unless sufficient cause was shown to the contrary in the meantime. The notice refers to Section 9-A of the Act and states that the petitioner had failed to show that it had 10% of the workmen employed in the 4th respondent, with which it is connected, as its members after 18.10.2012 as per the amended provisions of the Act. A copy of the said notice was served on the petitioner on 16.11.2012.

The petitioner submitted their reply on 10.01.2013 informing the Registrar that the contents of the notice dated 15.11.2012 were self-contradictory; on the one hand, it was stated therein that the signatures were forged, they had misrepresented facts and were forcing some members to join the union; on the other hand, it was stated that the Union had violated Section 9-A of the Act i.e., it lacked 10% membership; the notice revealed that the 4th respondent had submitted a letter dated 29.10.2012; on perusal of the copies of the letters, alleged to have been submitted by the individual workers, it was clear that the 4th respondent had created the said letters either by forging their signatures or by misrepresentation or after obtaining signatures from the individuals under threat of removal from employmen