- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
All India Trade Union Congress v. Dy. Registrar Of Trade Unions And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioners are the Maharashtra State Branch of the registered trade union known as All India Trade Union Congress (“AITUC”), registered on 12.9.1973 with registration number 1852. The petitioners contended that the 1st respondent registered respondent No. 2 under the name “AITUC Hawkers Union” on 4.12.2004, a union not affiliated with AITUC. No notice was given to the petitioners prior to this registration. The petitioners alleged that the use of the name “AITUC” by respondent No. 2 was likely to deceive the general public into believing it was affiliated with AITUC. They made a complaint to respondent No. 1 requesting cancellation or deletion of the word “AITUC” from respondent No. 2’s name. Despite this, respondent No. 1 initially rejected the petitioners’ objection on 17.2.2005. The petitioners challenged this rejection before the Court, which set aside the order and remanded the matter back to respondent No. 1 for a fresh hearing. After reconsideration, respondent No. 1 again rejected the objection on 19.5.2005. The present petition challenges this latter order.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the registration of respondent No. 2’s trade union under the name “AITUC Hawkers Union” was lawful given the prior registration of the “All India Trade Union Congress” under the Trade Unions Act, 1926.
- Whether the name “AITUC Hawkers Union” is so similar to “All India Trade Union Congress” or its abbreviation “AITUC” as to be likely to deceive the general public or members of trade unions, thereby attracting the provisions of section 7(2) of the Trade Unions Act, 1926.
- Whether respondent No. 1 failed in its statutory duty under section 7 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 to investigate and refuse registration on grounds of deceptive similarity.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners' Arguments
- The petitioners represent the Maharashtra State branch of AITUC and hold registration number 1852 since 1973.
- Respondent No. 2’s registration as “AITUC Hawkers Union” was done without notice and is not affiliated with AITUC.
- The use of “AITUC” in respondent No. 2’s name is likely to deceive the public into believing it is associated with AITUC.
- Section 7 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 imposes a statutory duty on respondent No. 1 to refuse registration if the name is likely to deceive, which was not discharged.
- A letter dated 4.3.2005 from the Secretary of All India Trade Union Congress advised respondent No. 2 to change its name as the use of “AITUC” is unfair and illegal.
- Respondent No. 2 challenged the petitioners’ locus to object instead of complying with the request to change the name.
Respondent No. 1's Position
- Respondent No. 1 rejected the petitioners’ objection initially and on remand, holding that there was no similarity between “AITUC Hawkers Union” and “All India Trade Union Congress.”
- The order noted that the abbreviation “AITUC” comes from the first letters of “All India Trade Union Congress” but concluded that the names were not similar enough to deceive.
- Respondent No. 1 considered a prior registration of “AITUC General Kamgar Union” in 1986, which was affiliated with All India Trade Union Congress, as relevant precedent.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Section 7(2) of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 | Registrar's duty to refuse registration if the proposed name is identical or so nearly resembles an existing registered trade union's name as to be likely to deceive the public or members. | The Court held that the registration of respondent No. 2’s union under the name “AITUC Hawkers Union” violated this provision, as it was likely to deceive the public and members by implying affiliation with the already registered All India Trade Union Congress. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court examined the statutory provision under section 7(2) of the Trade Unions Act, 1926, which mandates the Registrar to refuse registration of a trade union if its name is identical or closely resembles that of an existing registered union in a manner likely to deceive the public or members. The Court found that the abbreviation “AITUC” is widely recognized as representing the All India Trade Union Congress. The registration of respondent No. 2’s union as “AITUC Hawkers Union” was therefore likely to mislead the public and members into believing there was an affiliation or association with the established union.
The Court criticized respondent No. 1’s order for failing to apply the relevant legal tests and for non-application of mind, particularly in ignoring the material on record and the statutory purpose of section 7(2). The Court noted that the respondent’s reasoning, including reliance on a prior registration of a similarly named union affiliated with AITUC, did not justify permitting respondent No. 2’s registration under the contested name.
Consequently, the Court concluded that respondent No. 1’s registration of respondent No. 2’s union was contrary to the express language and intent of section 7(2) of the Trade Unions Act, 1926.
Holding and Implications
The Court set aside the impugned order dated 17.2.1995 and the registration granted to respondent No. 2 under No. ALC/Desk-17/10026. The registration of the “AITUC Hawkers Union” was declared invalid.
Respondent No. 2 is permitted to apply for registration under a new name that is not similar or deceptively similar to “All India Trade Union Congress” or its abbreviation “AITUC.” No order as to costs was made. The decision directly affects the parties by invalidating the contested registration but does not establish a broader precedent beyond the application of section 7(2) of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 in this context.
F.I Rebello, J.:— Rule. Heard learned Counsel for respective parties. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2. The petitioners aver that they are Maharashtra State Branch of a registered trade union known as All India Trade Union Congress which branch is popularly known as “AITUC”. The Union was registered on 12.9.1973 having registration No. 1852.
3. The petitioners as contended are an authorised body of All India Trade Union Congress and represents AITUC at the Maharashtra State level. The Maharashtra Council of AITUC comprises of elected representatives of unions affiliated to AITUC from the State of Maharashtra.
4. It is the case of the petitioners that the 1st respondents on 4.12.2004 registered respondent No. 2 under the name “AITUC Hawkers Union”. It is pointed out that the said Union is not affiliated to AITUC. Registration number given to respondent No. 2 is ALC/Desk-17/10026. No notice was given to the petitioners. On coming to know of the same and as it gives wrong impression and likely to deceive the general public, that the said union was in some way affiliated to AITUC, the petitioner made a complaint to respondent No. 1 by a letter dated 15.12.2004 A request was therefore made by the petitioner-Union that the name of newly registered union be cancelled or in the alternate the words “AITUC” be deleted from the name of the union. It is pointed out that considering the provisions of section 7 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 a statutory duty is conferred on the respondent No. 1 to investigate if the name is likely to deceive the general public or the members of trade unions. That statutory duty was not discharged by the respondent No. 1.
5. Pursuant to the complaint filed by the petitioner herein notices were issued amongst others to respondent No. 2 herein. As no action was being taken by an application dated 3.2.2005 the respondent No. 1 was requested to hear the matter expeditiously with further request to delete the words “AITUC”. The matter came up for disposal and it was adjourned from time to time. Ultimately an order came to be passed on 17.2.2005 rejecting the objection filed by the petitioners. Against that rejection a petition came to be filed before this Court being Writ Petition No. 785 of 2005 when by an order dated 21.3.2005 the order dated 17.2.2005 was set aside and the matter was remanded back to respondent No. 1 to pass fresh order after hearing both the parties. Subsequently after remand fresh order came to be passed on 19.5.2005 rejecting the objection raised by the petitioners herein. The 1st respondent while rejecting the objection has sought to hold that there is no similarity in the name of “AITUC Hawkers Union” and that of “All India Trade Union Congress” and consequently the demand made by the General Secretary of the petitioners is rejected. It is this order which is the subject matter of the present petition.
6. It may be pointed out that the petitioners have with the petition annexed a letter dated 4.3.2005 addressed to Com. Kapur Chand Gupta, General Secretary of respondent No. 2 written by the Secretary All India Trade Union Congress pursuant to the letter addressed to All India Trade Union Congress by respondent No. 2 in which the General Secretary was advised to get the name changed as using the word “AITUC” which is an abbreviated form of All India Trade Union Congress is not fair and legal. It was also pointed out that instead of heeding to the request of the petitioners, the respondent No. 2 is challenging the locus of the petitioners.
7. The question is whether respondent No. 1 could have proceeded to register respondent No. 2 as “AITUC Hawkers Union” when a union known as “All India Trade Union Congress” had already been registered under the provisions of the Trade Unions Act. Section 7(2) of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 reads as under:
“7(2). If the name under which a Trade Union is proposed to be registered is identical with that by which any other existing Trade Union has been registered or, in the opinion of the Registrar, so nearly resembles such name as to be likely to deceive the public or the members of either Trade Union, the Registrar shall require the persons applying for registration to alter the name of the Trade Union stated in the application, and shall refuse to register the Union until such alteration has been made.”
8. The question therefore is whether it can be said that the name under which respondent No. 2 has been registered is likely to deceive the general public or members of other trade unions to believe that respondent-Union is associated with or is a part of the All India Trade Union Congress. In the instant case the letter addressed to the General Secretary of respondent No. 2 the Secretary of All India Trade Union Congress dated March 4, 2005 itself indicate that the respondent No. 2 was informed that the word “AITUC” is the abbreviated form of All India Trade Union Congress. Respondent No. 1 by order dated 17.2.2005 has referred to the contention raised by respondent No. 2 the petitioners not raising objection to registration of union called “AITUC General Kamgar Union” in the year 1986 and while it got affiliated to the All India Trade Union Congress. Respondent No. 1 then holds that if one combines the first alphabet of each word in name “All India Trade Union Congress”, one get the abbreviation “AITUC”. Reference is then made to the pronouncement in Devnagari and it is held that there is no similarity. The reasoning given by respondent No. 1 in holding that there is no similarity is based on total non-application of mind and on non-consideration of material on record and failure to apply the relevant tests.
9. Once a Union is registered and in the instant case the All India Trade Union Congress is registered on 12.9.1973 under registration No. 1852 it will not be possible for respondent No. 1 to register any other Union having similar name considering section 7 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926. The very purpose as set out in section 7 is that the general public or members or trade union are not deceived that the Union which seeks to register in the name for which registration is sought is somehow connected to the Union already registered. In the instant case there cannot be a dispute that AITUC, is the abbreviated form of All India Trade Union Congress. Any other Union which seeks either to prefix or suffix AITUC is doing so with the intention of informing the member of general public or members of trade union that it is a part and parcel of All India Trade Union Congress or seeking to benefit from the goodwill that the name ‘AITUC’ has amongst the members of the public and more so amongst industrial and other workmen. Once it is so then section 7(2) is attracted” and respondent No. 1 in these circumstances ought to have refused to register respondent No. 2 in the name as sought, on the ground that it is likely to deceive the members of public and or members of trade union who seek to join respondent No. 2. In my opinion, the action of the respondent No. 1 in registering respondent No. 2 AITUC Hawkers Union is contrary to the express language of section 7(2).
10. In the light of above the impugned order dated 17.2.1995 is set aside, the registration granted in favour of respondent No. 2 under No. ALC/Desk- 17/10026 is set aside. It will be open to respondent No. 2 to apply to respondent No. 1 under a new name which is not similar or deceptively similar to the name of All India Trade Union Congress either in the name as registered or its abbreviated form. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.
11. Petition Allowed.
Alert