Point of Law :
It is difficult to hold that if the appellate authority has rejected the prayer of the appellant to dispense with the deposit unconditionally or has dispensed with such deposit subject to some conditions without hearing the appellant, on perusal of the petition filed on behalf of the appellant for the said purpose, the order itself is vitiated and is liable to be quashed being violative of the principles of natural justice.”

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“ … to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records in File No.C/180/2016 on the file of the 1st respondent and set aside the order dated 18.07.2019 as arbitrary, illegal, violation of principles of natural justice, violation of the order passed in W.P.No.17240 of 2009 of this Hon’ble Court and contrary to the law laid down and pass … ”

2. Brief facts of the case, as per the averments in the writ affidavit, are as follows:

The petitioner is a union of workers working in the 2nd respondent. The petitioner conducted a general body meeting on 10.09.2008 and submitted the Minutes of Meeting and other material in prescribed forms to the 1st respondent- Additional Registrar of Trade Union-cum-Joint Commissioner of Labour, Ranga Reddy Zone, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Joint Commissioner’), requesting to register the petitioner as a Trade Union under the Trade Unions Act. On receipt of the prescribed forms from the petitioner, the Joint Commissioner directed the Deputy Commissioner of Labour to cause enquiry and submit a report. Thereafter, on the basis of the report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner, the Joint Commissioner registered the petitioner as a Trade Union by issuing Certificate of Registration No.A-4406 dated 27.09.2008.

3. After registration of Trade Union, on behalf of the workers, certain demands were made by submitting a request to the Joint Commissioner, and the Joint Commissioner issued a notice to the 2nd respondent proposing to conduct a meeting. The 2nd respondent objected to granting of registration in favour of the petitioner. Further, the 2nd respondent filed W.P.No.17240 of 2009 seeking annulment of Certificate of Registration No.A-4406 dated 27.09.2008 issued in favour of the petitioner.

4. This Court by order dated 23.12.2015 disposed of the writ petition by directing the 2nd respondent to submit a fresh representation to the Registrar within three weeks from the date of that order, and also directed the Registrar to decide the representation that may be submitted by the 2nd respondent, along with the representations of the petitioner dated 06.01.2009 and 15.01.2009 strictly in accordance with law.

5. In accordance with the order of this Court dated 23.12.2015 in W.P.No.17240 of 2009, the 2nd respondent submitted a representation dated 27.01.2016 to the Joint Commissioner. The Joint Commissioner issued a letter dated 24.02.2016 to the petitioner, by enclosing the representation of the 2nd respondent dated 27.01.2016, and called for remarks of the petitioner within seven days.

6. In response to the letter of the Joint Commissioner dated 24.02.2016, the petitioner furnished a detailed reply on 14.03.2016. Thereafter, there was no communication from the Joint Commissioner, except passing of the impugned order No.C/180/2016 dated 18.07.2019, canceling the Certificate of Registration No.A-4406 dated 27.09.2008. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner union is before this Court with this writ petition.

7. The submissions were made by Sri K.V. Satya Rama Chandra Rao on behalf of the petitioner; Sri Sri C.R.Sridharan, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the 2nd respondent; and the learned Government Pleader for the 1st respondent.

8. Learned Senior Counsel for the 2nd respondent fairly submits that as the learned counsel for the petitioner has confined challenge to the order on the sole ground of principles of natural justice, without adverting to the merits of the case, he would also confine himself to the said aspect and accordingly submits that the factual aspects need not be dealt with by this Court. It is for this reason, the factual aspects mentioned in the respective affidavits are not being referred to, confining only to the point urged by the counsels.

9. The 2nd respondent, who is on Caveat, was served with the papers, filed a detailed counter affidavit. The averments in th