Back
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
AMIT BORKAR, J
National Organization of Insurance Workers – Appellant
Versus
The Deputy Registrar under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and Assistant Labour Commissioner – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 2879 of 2016
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Anand Jaiswal, Shri Swapnil Pathak
For the Respondents: Shri Amit Madiwale, Shri Atul Pathak, Shri Ritesh Badhe
Only registered trade unions possess legal standing to seek cancellation under the Trade Unions Act; unregistered unions lack juristic personality.
Headnote:(A) Trade Unions Act, 1926 - Section 10(2) - Cancellation of registration of a Trade Union - Registration can only be canceled if fraud or mistake is proven or if the union ceases to exist - The respondent had no locus standi to seek cancellation since it was not a registered entity as required by law. (Paras 3-12)
(B) Juristic Personality of Unions - Only registered unions have the legal capacity to sue and be sued - Unregistered unions do not have independent legal existence. (Paras 8-12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenge the cancellation of their union’s registration based on claims of fraud from a similarly named unregistered union. The petitioners have provided necessary documents and assert that the respondent lacks standing to challenge their registration.
Findings of Court:
The respondent’s lack of legal registration precludes it from contesting the registration of the petitioners’ union, affirming that only registered unions possess the rights provided under the Act.
Issues: The court examined whether the respondent had the standing to seek cancellation and the validity of the grounds for cancellation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that only registered unions can invoke the provisions of the Trade Unions Act, confirming that the petitioner’s compliance with registration requirements was adequate and no grounds for cancellation existed. (Paras 12-14)
Result: The order cancelling the registration of the petitioners' union was quashed and set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners challenge the cancellation of union registration. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. respondents claim similarity causes confusion; petitioners argue lack of locus. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. registered unions have legal standing; unregistered unions do not. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. court rules on the absence of legal standing by unregistered unions. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. final ruling quashes previous cancellation order. (Para 15) |
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties.
2. By this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners are challenging the judgment and order dated 10.12.2015 passed by respondent no.1 cancelling the registration of petitioner no.1-Union in the exercise of power under Section 10 (2) of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (for short, ‘the said Act’).
3. Respondent no.2 applied with respondent no.1 on 14th September 2014, alleging that petitioner no.1-Trade Union was registered by practising fraud on the Registrar. According to respondent no.2, respondent no.2-Union has existed for the last 45 years and has an area of operation of entire India. Moreover, it is alleged that the name of respondent no.2-Union is similar to the name of petitioner no.1, which misleads employees, management and those related to the affairs of Union and therefore prayed for cancellation of registration in the exercise of power under Section 10 (2) of the said Act.
4. Respondent no.1 issued notice to petitioners. Petitioners filed a reply before respondent no.1. They pointed out that registration can be cancelled only if it is proved that it has been obtained by fraud or mistake or that the Trade Union has ceased to exist or has willfully and after notice from the Registrar contravened any provision of the said Act. It is also stated that respondent no.2 has no locus to apply for cancellation of registration of petitioner no.1-Union as respondent no.2 is not registered under the provisions of the said Act.
5. Respondent no.1, after giving a hearing to both sides, cancelled the registration of petitioner no.1-Union on the ground that petitioner no.1-Union had obtained registration without disclosing similarity in the names of petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2-Union. The said order under Section 10 (2) of the said Act is the subject matter of the present petition.
6. Shri Anand Jaiswal, learned Senior Advocate on behalf of petitioners, submitted that in the absence of registration under the provision of the said Act. Therefore, respondent no.2 had no locus to apply for cancellation of registration of petitioner no.1- Union. He submitted that petitioner no.1 had furnished all the required information along with the statutory form. Therefore, there is no suppression of material fact by petitioner no.1. He submitted that respondent no.2 is the federation of Unions in India and operates at the national level. He submitted that there is no finding recorded by respondent no.1 in relation to Regulation-8 of Bombay Trade Unions Regulations, 1927.
7. Per contra, Shri Atul Pathak, learned Advocate for respondents nos.2 and 3, submitted that registration of similar names with that of respondent no.2 creates confusion amongst employees, management and people all associated with the affairs of respondent no.2. He submitted that if similar names had been pointed to respondent no.1, the registration order could not have been passed. He submitted that respondent no.2 does not need to be registered under the provision of the said Act. He submitted that no interference is called for in the impugned order.
8. The rival contentions fall for my consideration. Undisputedly, respondent no.2 is neither registered under Trade Unions Act nor registered under the provision of any other Act. A registered Trade Union is a statutory legal entity it can sue or sued in its own name. An unregistered Trade Union is not a juristic person. Such Union cannot initiate judicial proceedings. It is a
