THE HON’ BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.33101 of 2016

ORDER:

The case of the petitioner, briefly stated as per the writ affidavit, is that the petitioner is a Trade Union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, through Registration No. A/TU/17/2010 dated 15.02.2010. The 3^rd respondent -Deputy Registrar vide the impugned Order dated 03.09.2016 cancelled the registration based on a direction from the 2nd respondent- Deputy Commissioner of Labour vide Letter No. A/675/2015, dated 13.06.2016. The petitioner’s main claim is that this cancellation is an act done out of revenge, and carried out without issuance of mandatory 60 days’ prior notice as per law, thereby it is violation of principles of natural justice. It is contended that the impugned cancellation is an act of vengeance as the petitioner-union stood upagainst M/s. Thakur Savedekar& Company Ltd., for the cause of realisation of unpaid provident fund and gratuity of over 100 uneducated beedi workers.

1.1 It is stated that the actual events began when the petitioner made a complaint against the Management, thereby the Assistant Commissioner of Labour sent a report to the Joint Commissioner on 29.04.2013. The Joint Commissioner called for a meeting vide letter dated 02.05.2013 but it was ignored by the management. The Joint Commissioner vide Memo No. B/1244/2014 dated 17.10.2014 found discrepancies in the records maintained by the Management, and directed the 2nd respondent to take action under Labour laws. The 2nd respondent was hand in glove with the Management of M/s Tahkur Savedekar& Company Limited., and failed to act as per law, and therefore the petitioner-union raised the issue with the District Collector, Medak, on 03.08.2015. The District Collector questioned the 3rd respondent about the reasons for not acting as per law against the management. As a consequence of this complaint, the 3rd respondent first tried to cancel the petitioner-union’s registration by an order dated 29.08.2015 without issuing notice; and also challenged this through Writ Petition No. 30621 of 2015. This Court by order dated 23.09.2015 directed the 2nd respondent to hold a full-fledged enquiry. The 2nd respondent gave a show-cause notice, and the petitioner gave explanation with 13 supporting documents. However, the 2nd respondent gave the suggestion to cancel the registration on 13.06.2016 without a fair enquiry, on the strength of proofcollected behind the back of petitioner, including an unsigned sale deed.

1.2 The petitioner’s main claims are that the respondents acted unfairly and with vengeance. They say the 2nd respondent, by colluding with the management, failed to follow the Joint Commissioner’s order dated 17.10.2014, and carried out a fake enquiry, and used false evidence. They also say the 3rd respondent began the cancellation out of vengeancein retaliation of petitioner’s complaint to the District Collector on 03.08.2015, and despite the order of this Court for a full enquiry, the 3^rd respondent chose to ignore it and give the final cancellation. It is stated that the entire action is based on a false complaint from a group, called “Medak Zilla Thekedarula Sangham,” which does not exist and which is not a registered trade union.

1.3 It is further stated that the respondents allege that the petitioner union got its registration illegally, by claiming that the union was not located at the address it gave in its registration papers. These claims were said to be made by the unregistered “Medak Zilla Thekedarula Sangham” and the management. The petitioner strongly denies these claims, saying the registration was obtained by “legal means,” and that it gave yearly reports and payment slips to show its real work; and therefore the impugned cancellation of registration is illegal and arbitrary.

2. A counter affidavit is filed by the 3^rd respondent-Deputy Commissioner of Labour and Deputy Registrar of Trade Unions for Sangareddy, contending that the impugned cancellat