Case: Bajaj Auto Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra &amp; Others

1. The appeal is filed to challenge the decision given by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.2596/2011 and also the order made by the second respondent, the Registrar appointed under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 onThe application made by the present appellant, a company onfor cancellation of the certificate of registration granted to respondent No.3, a Trade Union onunder the provisions of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is rejected by the Registrar. The order of the Registrar is confirmed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. Both the sides are heard.2. In the application made by the Trade Union, respondent No.3 for registration it was contended that the Trade Union was to work for the workers from all industries of Maharashtra. The application was signed by 8 persons, who included 4 office bearers. It was informed to the Registrar that as on the date of the application the Trade Union had 1525 members. The applicants on the application other than the office bearers were also members of the Trade Union. In Schedule A information was given that the members were the ex employees of the presentIn Schedule B it was informed that litigation was pending between the members and the appellant company.3. The submissions made in the present proceeding and also which were made before the learned Single Judge and also the Registrar show that it was admitted for the Trade Union in the past before the Registrar and the learned Single Judge that the Trade Union was formed by the employees who were terminated by theand it was working for those employees only.

Reasoning:
The aforesaid Article which gives fundamental right to the citizens of this country and the observations made by the Apex Court show that for effective functioning of the association/union if registration is necessary, registration needs to be allowed. In a case like the present one if registration is not allowed, the Union will not be able to achieve its lawful objectives. In the present matter it cannot be said that the objective of the Union which is already quoted was unlawful. When in section 22 of the Act the scope which is already discussed is also given, though it may be to the office bearers, it needs to be kept in mind that, that scope is much wider than what the members of the present Union are claiming. In view of these circumstances and as it is a fundamental right, it is difficult to accept that there should be strict compliance of the provision of section 4 of the Act. In the case like present one,who want to enforce their right by proving that they were illegally terminated and they have right of reinstatement, they need to be treated as the employees, the persons described in section 4 of the Act.24. From the practical angle also present case needs to be seen. If on the date of the registration of the present Union, there were two registered Unions but of the permanent employees of thethose registered Unions will not be interested to espouse the cause of the members of theAs already observed, the members of thecannot be compelled to join the Union of permanent employees who may have adverse interest against the temporary employees. The members of thehad worked for more than 10 years as temporary employees and in view of the facts of the present matter there was no other alternative before them than to come together and form the Union like theIf the registration of such Union is denied, ordinarily it will amount to preventing suchfrom formation of Union which can act effectively. In view of the fact that it is a fundamental right of such persons, the construction which will give benefit to such persons needs to be accepted as that construction will be only the rational construction.25. At the time of interpretation of the provisions of the Act it also needs to be kept in mind that after the registration, the Trade Union gets many rights under many labour laws like Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. It is required to be kept in mind that the employees or thewho cannot approach court for any reason can get the protection of such Trade Union as the Trade Union, which is registered, can take appropriate steps for protecting the rights and interests of employees and alsoFurther, the Trade Union if registered can represent all the employees in such undertaking. In section 10(b) of the Act it is provided that registration can be cancelled if Trade Union has ceased to exit or when the registered Trade Union fails to comply with the conditions laid down in the aforesaid provisions. For all these reasons this Court holds that the employer, in ordinary course, is not expected to object the registration of such Trade Union.26. The learned counsel for the respondent, registered Trade Union placed reliance on some observations made by the Apex Court in the case reported as (2015 (2) AIR BOM R (S.C.) 278 (R.G. Dsouza vs. Poona Employees UnionAnr) (cited supra). In this case the Apex Court has laid down in paragraphs 17, 18 and 19 that if certificate of registration is granted by the Registrar by mistake, due to incorrect assessment on non application of mind or mechanical act on the part of the authority, that circumstance is not covered by section 10 of the Act. There cannot be dispute over this proposition. In the present matter, different point is raised by the appellant like non fulfillment of conditions mentioned in sections 4 and 22 of the Act for allowing registration of Trade Union. In view of the aforesaid discussion this Court has no hesitation to observe that there are no merits in the Letters Patent Appeal and though the reasons are not exhaustively given by the learned Single Judge, the learned Single Judge has not committed any error in deciding the matter against the appellant.