Honble MUKHERJI, ACTG. C.J. – This special appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 17th April, 1995 passed by a learned Single Judge of our Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5870/93.

(2). The Registrar of Trade Unions filed the writ application seeking to quash the judgment and order passed by the learned District Judge, Udaipur dated 7th August, 1993. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the learned District Judge has rightly set aside the order cancelling the registration of the respondent-Lake Palace Hotel Karya Karta Union dated 30.9.1991 and in that view of the matter, the learned Single Judge was not inclined to interfere with the judgment and order as passed by the learned District Judge and thus dismissed the application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, the Registrar of Trade Unions and Joint Labour Commissioner was given liberty to proceed under Section 10 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 in accordance with law.

(3). Mr. K.L. Jasmatia, learned Additional Advocate General in support of the special appeal contended before us that both the learned Single Judge as well as the learned District Judge failed to consider the legal provisions contained under the Trade Unions Act and decided the matter illegally by not taking the correct view of the law and accordingly, the orders impugned are liable to be set-aside and/or quashed. Mr. Jasmatia further contended that as per the provisions laid down under Section 10(b) of the Trade Unions Act, 1926, the Registrar is empowered to cancel the registration after giving two months notice specifying the grounds in writing. Neither the learned Single Judge nor the learned District Judge could appreciate that in the present case, the Union concerned was given two months time to furnish returns as per the requirements under Section 28 of the Trade Union Act, but still then the learned District Judge as well as the learned Single Judge of our Court were of the considered view that a second notice ought to have been given to the respondent-Lake Palace Hotel Karya Karta Union before any decision to cancel its registration was taken by the Registrar of Trade Unions. Mr. Jasmatia further contended that on a bare perusal of Section 10(b) of the Trade Unions Act, it was manifestly clear that such procedure so as to give a second notice was envisaged under law even though only one notice could do duty for the requirements of the statute.

(4). We have given our due consideration to the provisions of the statute in this regard. The certificate of registration of a Trade Union may be withdrawn or cancelled by the Registrar if the latter 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 the Act or allowed any rule to continue in force which is inconsistent with any such provision or has rescinded any rule providing for any matter which was specifically provided for as per the requirements under Section 6. The proviso under Section 10(b) of the Trade Unions Act contained inter-alia a provision that not less than two months previous notice in writing specifying the grounds on which it is proposed to withdraw or cancel the certificate shall have to be given by the Registrar to the Trade Union concerned before the certificate is withdrawn or cancelled, otherwise than on the application of the Trade Union itself.

(5). Mr. Jasmatia placed reliance on a Single Bench judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Registrar of Trade Unions vs. Dum Dum Cantonment Businessmens and Traders Union (1), to contend that Section 10 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 did not require two notices and the requirement under Section 10 is well met if only one notice is issued and that notice is of not less than two months from the date of the cancellation. The two months limit has been reached in the reported decision within the proviso to Secti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document