JUDGMENT - M.L. PENDSE, J.:---Both these petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be conveniently disposed of by common judgment as the issue raised in both these petitions is identical. The facts giving rise to filing of the two petitions are required to be briefly stated to appreciate the grievance made by the petitioner Union in both the petitions.

2. Association of Engineering Workers is a Trade Union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and represents the employees in the undertaking of Mazagon Docks Limited, Bombay. The association of Engineering Workers is also registered as recognised union in respect of the undertaking of respondent No. 2 under section 11 of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 971 (hereinafter referred to as the MRTU PULP Act). Respondent No. 1 - Dockyard Labour Union is also a Trade Union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and filed Application No. 44 of 1987 on October 19, 1987 before the Industrial Court at Bombay for registration as a recognised union under the MRTU PULP Act. The application filed under section 14 of that Act was resisted by the petitioner Union by filing written objections in November 1987. The petitioner Union raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the application on the ground that the registration of Dockyard Labour Union was cancelled by the Additional Registrar of Trade Unions, Bombay on January 30, 1981 and consequently the application for registration under the MRTU PULP Act was not maintainable. The Dockyard Labour Union answered the preliminary objection by pointing out that the order of cancellation of the registration passed on January 30, 1981 was withdrawn by the Additional Registrar of Trade Unions, Bombay on March 12, 1981 and consequently the registration of Dockyard Labour Union was in operation and the Union can seek registration under the MRTU PULP Act. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner was overruled by Member of the Industrial Court, Bombay by order dated July 14, 1988 passed below Exhibit U-1. The Industrial Court held that in view of the withdrawal of the order of cancellation of certificate of registration, the preliminary contention of non-maintainability of the application is required to be overruled. The petitioner Union preferred Writ Petition No. 2475 of 1988 to challenge legality of the order passed by the Industrial Court overruling the preliminary objection.

3. On June 6, 1988 Dockyard Labour Union filed Application (MRTU) No. 22 of 1988 in the Industrial Court, Bombay under section 13 of the MRTU PULP Act for cancellation or derecognition of the petitioner Union. The Dockyard Labour Union claimed that the petitioner's membership has for continuous period of six calendar months fallen below the minimum required under section 11 of the Act, the petitioner Union has failed to observe any of the conditions specified in section 19 of the Act and the petitioner Union is not being conducted bona fide in the interest of the employees. The petitioner Union filed reply to the application, inter alia, raising a preliminary objection that the application for derecognition of the petitioner Union filed by the dockyard Labour Union is not maintainable as the said Union is not a registered trade union under the Trade Unions Act. The objection was that the registration of Dockyard Labour Union under the Trade Unions Act was cancelled on January 30, 1981 and the Registrar has no authority or jurisdiction to withdraw that order and the only remedy of Dockyard Labour Union was to prefer an appeal against the order of cancellation of the registration. The appeal not having been preferred, claimed the petitioner Union, the order of cancellation of registration stands and the application for derecognition under section 13 of the MRTU PULP Act was not maintainable. The preliminary objection to the maintainability of the application rais

Click Here to Read the rest of this document