Mohta, J.:— Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard.
2. The petitioner is a trade union duly registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. The respondent, the Registrar of Trade Unions, issued a notice, dated 14 May, 1982, under S. 10(6) of the Act calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the registration of the petitioner-union should not be cancelled as the pettioner had failed to submit annual returns as per law. The petitioner gave a reply stating that due to misunderstanding about the accounting year, the annual returns for the period ending 31 March, 1991 were filed and not for the period ending 31 December, 1991 along with the certificate of auditor. This explanation was followed by communication, dated 26 June, 1992, along with annual returns ending 31 December, 1991. After long gap of six months, the Registrar passed the impugned order of cancellation of registration on the sole ground that the explanation given by the trade union was not satisfactory. Aggrieved thereby, this petition has been filed.
3. Now, S. 10 provides for the ground on which registration can be cancelled or withdrawn. One of them, is wilful contravention of provision of the Act, that too after notice from the Registrar. Initial mistake to submit annual returns for the wrong accounting year was corrected as soon as it was brought to the notice of the petitioner. Impugned order has been passed long after the mistake was corrected. In the background, it cannot be said that the contravention was wilful and after notice.
4. The scheme of S. 10 is that for cancelling the registration of the trade union for contravention of any provision of the Act, the contravention must be wilful and after notice from the Registrar and two months' previous notice specifying the ground for proposed cancellation must have been issued. It does not appear that these requirements of the provision have been complied with before passing the impugned order. In this context, useful reference may be made to the case of Mysore Iron and Steel Works Labourers Association v. Commissioner of Labour and Registrar of Trade Unions, Bangalore, [1972 — L.LN 36], wherein a similar view of S. 10 has been taken.
5. Having regard to the whole background, the impugned order cannot be legally justified at all. The only vague reason given in the order is that the explanation for filling incorrect annual returns earlier was not satisfactory without giving indications as to how and why.
6. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs.