JUDGMENT :

Goutam Bhaduri, J.

1. Heard.

2. The present appeal is against the order dated 30.8.2019 passed by the learned Single Bench in W.P.(L) No.2940 of 2007, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.

3. The brief facts of the case are that pursuant to a cancellation of registration of the Trade Union of the appellant on 20.2.2007, an appeal was filed before the Industrial Court under Section 11 (1) (aa) of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (for short 'the Act, 1926').

4. The State Industrial Court, Raipur dismissed the appeal by an order dated 26.4.2007 and the same was subject of challenge in the writ petition before the learned Single Bench. The learned Single Bench by the impugned order dated 30.8.2019 dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that facts of this case would show that a show cause notice was issued to the appellant by the Registrar, Trade Union, State of C.G. on 23.1.2007. The notice was issued in exercise of powers under Section 10 (b) of the Act, 1926 and two months time was given to reply to the same. However, before expiry of period of two months, on 20.2.2007, an order was passed whereby the registration of the Trade Union was cancelled. He would further submit that though the order was passed by the Industrial Tribunal, but, since there was violation of the fundamental rights, the nature of petition would be under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the writ petition would be maintainable for the reason that there has been a gross violation of rules of natural justice. He placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Madhya Pradesh and Others Vs. Visan Kumar Shiv Charan Lal reported in [(2008) 15 SCC 233] to submit that nature of relief sought for and the grounds raised in the petition would decide the course of nature of petition. It is stated that admittedly in this case since there was violation of rules of natural justice, the writ petition would directly lie before the writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is stated that it shows that both the Courts below have failed to consider those facts by referring to the earlier notices, consequently, the registration and the impugned order cannot be sustained.

6. Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that petition itself was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this High Court, therefore, any order passed in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction would be not appealable as per the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006, as per Section 2 (1) proviso Clause. He also placed reliance upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. reported in [(2015) 9 SCC 1] and Ram Kishan Fauji Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. reported in [(2017) 5 SCC 533]. He would further submit that on the date of filing of the petition, the Union was derecognized and had no entity to file any petition, therefore, the order of the learned Single Bench is well merited and does not call for any interference.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the records of the learned Single Bench as also the impugned order.

8. The initial journey for dispute started from the issuance of notice by the Registrar, Trade Union under Section 10 (b) of the Act, 1926. For ready reference Section 10 (b) of Act, 1926 is reproduced hereunder:-

“10. Cancellation of registration.- A certificate of registration of a Trade Union may be withdrawn or cancelled by the Registrar-

(a) XXX XXX XXX

(b) if the Registrar is satisfied that the certificate has been obtained by fraud or mistake, or that the Trade Union has ceased to exist or has wilfully and after notice from the Registrar contravened any provision of this Act or allowed any rule to continue in force which is inconsistent with any such provis