Case: R.G.D'Souza Vs. Poona Employees Union

t was the Union President of the Trade Union when the application for the Registration of it was submitted. Due to internal clashes, he was expelled from the Trade Union. There were some disputes between the Trade Union and another Union namely, Bhartiya Kamgar Senafor short) pending before the Industrial Court. Theclaimed that he was an active member in the Labour movement and an interested party and therefore, filed an applicationSection 10 of theTrade Unions Act, 1926 (for short) before the Additional Registrar of Trade Unions seeking cancellation of the Certificate of Registration of the Trade Union on the ground that the same was obtained by fraud, mistake orground taken for cancellation of the registration of the Trade Union was non-filing of the necessary documents as per the Rules and Regulation and obtained Registration Certificate by mistake and fraud which was accepted by the Additional Registrar of the Trade Unions. The Additional Registrar of Trade Unions by his order dated 12.2.2008 cancelled the registration of the Trade Union.3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Trade Union filed an appealSection 11 of the Act before the Industrial Court, Pune, the Appellate Authority. After hearing both the parties, the Industrial Court, Pune passed an order on 11.4.2008, by recording its reasons, set aside the order passed by the Additional Registrar of Trade Unions.4. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Industrial Court, thepreferred writ petition No. 4048 of 2008 before the High Court of BombayArticle 226 of the Constitution of India urging various grounds, inter alia contending that the order passed by the Industrial Court is vitiated both on the grounds of erroneous finding and error in law. The High Court came out with the following two issues involved in thent had locus standi to invoke the proceedingsSection 10 of theTrade Unions Act,the Registration Certificate obtained by fraud or mistake by the firstUnion and so liable to beThe High Court rejected the submissions made on behalf of theand held that thehad no locus to apply for cancellation of the Certificate of Registration of the Trade Union and that the view taken by the Industrial Court on the same is legal and valid.

Court's reasoning:
. In our considered view, the High Court has correctly held that the wordin the application form and the Rules of the Trade UnionSection 6 of the Act can be considered asThe High Court has rightly held that the wordcould mean that the object the Trade Union was to operate in all types of industries in Pune District. The necessity of specifying or disclosing the nature of industry/industries in which the Trade Union intends to operate and functions came only when the Section 2 of the amendment Act of 31 of 2001 (w.e.f. 9.1.2002) was inserted in theTrade Unions Act,1926, whereas the Trade Union was registered in the year 1986. The requirement of workmen engaged in an establishment or industry with which it is connected to be members of the Trade Union came only after Section 4 was amended and the provisos were incorporated which came into force w.e.f. 09.01.2002, which is much after the registration of the Trade Union. The first part of the proviso mandated that a Trade Union must have at least ten percent or one hundred workmen engaged or employed in an establishment or industry who are members of such Trade Union on the date of making the application for registration. The second part of the proviso mandated that a Trade Union on the date of making application for registration must have not less than seven persons as its members who are engaged or employed in the establishment or industry with which it is connected. This requirement was not needed at the time of registration of the Trade Union as the above said amendment to the Act came after the registration of the same. From the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, the Trade Union has neither suppressed nor supplied any information by fraud or mistake in order to obtain the Certificate of Registration. Therefore, discrepancy in providing details in the prescribed Formbeing a product of the above Amendment Act cannot invalidate or is not a valid ground to cancel the Certificate of Registration of the Trade Union and the decision of this Court in the case of Forbes Forbes Campbell (supra) as relied on by the learnedcounsel for theis not relevant in the case on hand.