S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.

1. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the 2nd respondent dismissing the complaint preferred by the petitioner.

2. The impugned order is passed by the Deputy Registrar, Trade Unions, a Authority under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, Nashik Division, Nashik in Original Application No. 128 of 2005 and dated 31st December, 2005.

3. The only question that requires an answer in this Petition is whether the Federation of Labour Law Practitioners’ Association, respondent no. 3 to this Petition, can obtain registration under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (for short, ‘the said Act’) on the basis that it is a Trade Union as defined in Section 2 clause (h) of the said Act.

4. The petitioner, a practicing advocate and registered with the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, has filed this Petition impleading the State of Maharashtra, the 2nd respondent an authority vested with the power to register Trade Unions under the said Act, the 3rd respondent-Federation and equally, the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa and the Bar Council of India.

5. The petitioner states that the position and status of an advocate under the Advocates Act, 1961 cannot be lost sight of. It is the Advocates Act, 1961 which applies to such professionals. When such professionals organize themselves and form associations, they may as well be permitted to do so and enroll as members even non-advocates, but surely, such persons are practicing before a Court of Law. In the present case, they are practicing before the Labour and Industrial Courts across the State of Maharashtra. They have formed associations at district level and such district level associations have, thereafter, organized themselves into a Federation which is the 3rd respondent. In that sense, it is an apex body of the associations at the district level. However, but for the Mumbai Association of Labour Law Practitioners, other associations have obtained registration under the said Act. Such registration could not have been obtained by them, nor the authority could have issued a certificate of registration as Trade Union. That is how the petitioner complainant, invoking Section 10 of the said Act, applied for cancellation of the registration in favour of the 3rd respondent to this Petition. He made the requisite application, alleging that the certificate has been obtained by mistake. The authority has been misled in believing that this is a Trade Union and which satisfies the requirement stipulated in the definition of the said term as appearing in Clause (h) of Section 2 of the said Act.

6. After alleging thus, and making an application in the prescribed form for cancellation of registration, the petitioner realized that the illegality in the grant of certificate of registration was not corrected. The petitioner was, therefore, constrained to approach this Court. It is the grievance of the petitioner that an application seeking cancellation of registration was made to the Deputy Registrar functioning at Nashik. It is from that Registrar’s office that the certificate was obtained by the 3rd respondent. The petitioner was called upon to appear before the Registrar pursuant to his complaint. However, as there was no action taken pursuant to his complaint, that the petitioner moved a Writ Petition in this Court being Writ Petition No. 6128 of 2005. The Petition was filed seeking a mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, directing this Deputy Registrar, Trade Unions, Nashik, to decide the application for cancellation of registration in accordance with law.

7. On such a Petition, this Court made the following order on 22nd September, 2005: "Rule. Heard forthwith. The main relief as sought in the petition by the petitioner is the respondent No.2 be directed to scrutinise the complaint of the petitioner dated 24th February, 2005 at Exhibit “A” to the petition and adopt necessar