1. Appeal against a Labour Court order canceling the registration of a society and directing the immediate closure of all associated business establishments. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 24191
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Susmita Phukan Khaund, J
Chemists and Druggists Association of Assam – Appellant
Versus
Labour Commissioner cum Registrar of Trade Unions Assam – Respondent
CRP(IO)/543/2026
Important Points
The court is reviewing the jurisdiction and propriety of a Labour Court's order that cancelled a trade union's registration and mandated the closure of its business operations.
Subject
Labour Law - Trade Union Registration
Headnote
(A) Trade Union Registration - Cancellation of Registration - Challenge to Labour Court order directing closure of association and business - Allegation of perversity and lack of jurisdiction. (Para 3, 7)
(B) Procedural Fairness - Fraudulent Application - Dispute over whether registration was obtained through fraud or subsequent to a withdrawn application. (Para 5, 6)
Issues: Whether the Labour Court had the jurisdiction to order the closure of the association's business upon cancelling its registration.
(B) Procedural Fairness - Fraudulent Application - Dispute over whether registration was obtained through fraud or subsequent to a withdrawn application. (Para 5, 6)
Issues: Whether the Labour Court had the jurisdiction to order the closure of the association's business upon cancelling its registration.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: N Chaudhury, B. D. Deka
For the Respondents: S Chakraborty, K. N. Choudhury, R. J. Das
For the Appellants/Petitioners: N Chaudhury, B. D. Deka
For the Respondents: S Chakraborty, K. N. Choudhury, R. J. Das
Table of Contents
2. Appellant challenges the order as perverse and beyond jurisdiction, alleging mala fide and fraudulent conduct by respondents in misrepresenting their association as the duly registered society. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
3. The court acknowledged the appellant's claims regarding procedural irregularities in the registration process and the alleged lack of authority by the Registrar during such proceedings. (Para 6 , 7 )
4. An appellate court must exercise jurisdiction within legal bounds and cannot arbitrarily order closure of entities without sufficient regard for civil consequences and due process. (Para 3 , 7 , 8 )
5. The court issued notice to respondents returnable on the designated date and reserved the prayer for interim stay for consideration on the returnable date. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 )
6. Does an appellate court have the jurisdiction to order the immediate closure of a business entity during registration cancellation proceedings?
The court notes that directing the immediate closure of business establishments could be viewed as exercising jurisdiction beyond the scope of its authority, posing significant civil consequences for the affected parties. (Para 3 , 7 )
7. What is the consequence of stay orders granted by a higher court on subsequent judicial proceedings?
If a higher court has stayed proceedings involving similar civil consequences, lower courts are bound by such stay orders, preventing them from proceeding with orders that impact the status or legality of the registered entities. (Para 7 )
ORDER
1. Heard Mr. B. D. Deka, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S.Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. R. J. Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of learned Senior Counsel Mr. K. N.Choudhury representing the respondent No. 4 (Caveator).
2. The petitioner is highly aggrieved by the judgment and order dated27/08/2026 passed by the Labour Court in connection with Appeal No. 1/2023.
3. It is submitted that the decision of the court was perverse. It is further submitted that the Appellate Court overstepped its jurisdiction by directing that all business /association/establishment running in the name of the appellant's association is to be closed with immediate effect from the date of passing of the order. It is averred that this order was passed beyond jurisdiction and to the detriment of the appellant/petitioner.
4. It is alleged that the respondent No. 2, Md. Abed Ullah, was planted to raise objection against the registration of the Petitioner’s Association, namely, Chemists & Druggists Association of Assam (CDAA for short).
5. The learned Appellate Court had erroneously held that the petitioner had fraudulently applied for registration whereas in fact, the petitioenr had earlier applied for registration but the Association was not registered as the petitioner had withdrawn the earlier prayer for registration. On the petitioner's subsequent prayer for registration, the CDAA was registered.
6. There was no fraudulent or surreptitious conduct on the part of the petitioner rather, the respondent No. 2 in connivance with the respondent No. 1, tried to project that their Association is the duly registered society, with false allegations that the petitioner is not a recognized association.
7. It is further submitted that the Registrar abdicated his duty and he himself was not present during the Registration of CDAA. It is further submitted that this Court in an earlier revision petition preferred by the petitioner had stayed the proceedings of such a nature having civil consequences, more so during civil vacation, and this Court had stayed the proceedings of Appeal No. 1/2023 in connection with CRP(IO) 85/2025. So stating, the learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed to stay the operation of the order dated 27/08/2026 passed in Appeal No. 1/2023 as the Labour Court had erroneously cancelled the registration of the petitioner's association and directed closure of all business/association establishment running in the name of the petitioner.
8. It is submitted that the petitioner will be highly prejudiced and will suffer irreparable loss if the petitioner is not allowed to run his trade and business, as lives depend upon the petitioner's products.
9. The learned counsel Mr. R. J. Das has prayed for adjournment on behalf of learned Senior Counsel Mr. K. N. Choudhury.
10. At this stage, notice is issued to the respondents, returnable on04.11.2026.
11. The prayer for interim stay may be considered on the returnable date.
12. List accordingly.
