IMPORTANT POINT
The principle of natural justice, including the right to be heard and reasoned decision-making, influenced the court's decision in setting aside the non-speaking cancellation order.

JUDGMENT :

Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.

1. The present writ application has been filed, inter alia, challenging withdrawal/cancellation of Certificate of Registration by issuing a communication dated 28th October, 2022.

2. It is the petitioners’ case that the petitioner no.1 is a trade union, which is duly registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, (hereinafter referred to the “said Act”) bearing registration no.29292. Such registration had been issued on 13th January, 2021.

3. The petitioners claim that the petitioner no.1 to espouse the cause of the workmen employed with the Tata Steel Limited, Haldia, is presently party to a proceedings pending before the National Industrial Tribunal.

4. It is the petitioners’ case that some time in the month of June, 2022, the petitioner no.1 was served with a notice in Form ‘E’, issued under Regulation 8 of the Bengal Trade Unions Regulations, 1927 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Regulations”), intimating the intention of the respondent no.2 to proceed on 30th August, 2022, for withdrawal and/or cancellation of the Certificate of Registration of the petitioner no.1 on the following grounds:-

1. Non-submission of Annual Returns for more than 3 years.

2. Non-compliance with section 9A of the Trade Unions Act, 1926, as amended.

5. It is the petitioners’ case that the petitioners had since, by a communication in writing dated 13th July, 2022, had requested the respondent no.2 to withdraw the said notice, inter alia, by contending the following:-

“1. That our “Tata Steel Ltd (Hooghly Met Coke Divn), Haldia Contractor’s Mazdoor Sangh” is registered on 13th day of January, 2021 as per certificate of Registration of Trade Union having registration No.29292. Hence there is no ground of non-submission of Annual Return for more than 3 years. Photo copy of Certificate of Registration is attached here with for your kind perusal.

2. That in the ground no.2 regarding non-compliance with Section 9A of the Trade Union Act, 1926, we do here submit that our strength of members is 386 on our current record. The Photo Copy of Certificate of Registration is attached herewith for your kind perusal”.

6. According to the petitioners, the grounds for withdrawal of the aforesaid Certificate of Registration could not be made applicable insofar as the petitioner no.1 is concerned. The petitioners say that subsequently, the respondent no.2 without considering the petitioners response had purported to issue a notice in Form ‘F’ dated 28th October, 2022, under Regulation 9 of the said Regulations thereby, withdrawing and/or canceling the petitioner no. 1’s registration.

7. Mr. Chakraborti, learned advocate representing the petitioners, submits that the aforesaid order of cancellation is a non-speaking order. Although, an appellate forum has been provided, however, by reasons of the notice in Form ‘F’ being a non-speaking order, the petitioners are otherwise unable to appreciate as to whether the petitioners’ contention had been considered by the authority or not. Even if, the petitioners prefer an appeal before the Appellate Authority, the Appellate Authority shall not be in a position to appreciate why the petitioners’ registration has been withdrawn, having regard to the response of the petitioners.

8. He still further submits that although, the notice in Form ‘E’ specifically indicated that the respondent no.2, shall proceed to withdraw the cancellation on 30th August, 2022, the same had not been done. No further notice had been served on the petitioners. The aforesaid act is in violation of principle of natural justice. The cancellation had been effected on 28th October, 2022. No opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners. In the given facts, he submits that the aforesaid order passed by the respondent no.2, which is a non-speaking order, cannot be sustained and the same should be set aside and quashed.

9. Per contra, Mr. Saha, learned advocate representing the respondents, submits that there is no irregularity on the