1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.3917 OF 2009. 1. PUSAD URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK EMPLOYEES UNION, PUSAD, REGISTERED NO.4475 THROUGH PRESIDENT RAJESH S/O. MADHAVDAS BAJAJ, NEAR TALAV LAYOUT, PUSAD, TALUKA PUSAD, DISTRICT : YAVATMAL. .. PETITIONER. VERSUS 1. ANIL S/O. ABHIMANJI THAKRE, MEMBER, PUSAD URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK EMPLOYEE UNION, R/O. 27, BHAGHYODAYA SOCIETY, WADGAON, POST : WADGAON, TALUKA AND DISTRICT YAVATMAL. .. RESPONDENT. _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ Shri Abhay Sambre, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri Rode h/f. Shri A.C.Dharmadhikari, Advocate for respondent. CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATED : OCTOBER 06, 2009. 1. This petition is directed against order passed by learned Member, Industrial Court, Yavatmal granting interim relief, whereby the learned Member directed the petitioner to refrain from dealing with financial transactions of the petitioner union and to submit all the documents and account books relating to the property of the union to the Industrial Court within fifteen days of the said order. 2. The petitioner contended that after having held that the Court did not have jurisdiction to decide the question of 2 cancellation of registration it was not open to the Court to grant any interim relief. The learned Member had also referred to the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in R.G. D’souza Vs. Poona Employees Union, reported at 2009(4) Mh.L.J. 95 and had correctly concluded that jurisdiction to cancel registration of the union under Section 10 of the Trade Unions Act vests with the Registrar. It may, however, be seen that the dispute in the case was filed after obtaining requisite consent from the Registrar. The application to the Registrar for obtaining consent is titled as ‘application for cancellation of the registration and for getting certificate for filing dispute about the property of the union before the Industrial Court’. Thus, the application for cancellation of the registration was made before the Registrar himself but in addition consent was sought under Section 28 (1-A) of the Trade Unions Act for filing dispute before the Industrial Court. Such a consent certificate was issued by the Deputy Registrar of the Trade Unions and thereafter the dispute was raised. In the dispute there are three prayers. First was about direction to the Registrar to cancel the registration of the Trade Union. Second prayer, which the learned counsel for the petitioner brands to be ancillary, are for fixing responsibility on the office bearers and to punish or fine them in relation to irregularities in accounts of the union and not submitting returns of the union or submitting wrong returns when called for by the Registrar. Third prayer is about recovery of entire costs involved from the office bearers. By merely branding second and third prayers as ancillary to the first prayer, the petitioner cannot take the dispute out jurisdiction of the Industrial Court. This question was very much cognizable by the Industrial Court under 3 Section 28(1-A) of the Trade Unions Act. Necessary consent had already been obtained by the respondent from the Registrar for this purpose. Therefore, it cannot be said that the learned Member had no jurisdiction to pass such an order. Considering the reasons, for which the learned Member has passed an order, it cannot be said that the order is perverse or one which could not at all have been passed and therefore, does not call for any interference. 3. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE RR.