1. Petitioner 1 is a registered trade union under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, operating the Raymond Synthetics Ltd., a public limited company. In January 1993, respondent 4, Raymond Synthetics Ltd. Mazdoor Sangh, Karchhana, Allahabad, moved an application for registration of its union in the name of Raymond Synthetics, Ltd. Karamchari Sangh. Respondent 1, the Registrar, Trade Unions, Uttar Pradesh, Kanpur, after making necessary enquiries from respondents 2 and 4 registered respondent 4 by an order, dated 28 July, 1993, exercising powers under S. 8 of the Trade Unions Act, the said order is impugned in the present writ petition on the ground that no opportunity was afforded to the petitioners to contest the claim of the respondent 4 and that respondent 4 did not fulfill the requisite conditions prescribed under S. 5. of the Trade Unions Act.
2. The petitioners contend that the notice for registration submitted by respondent 4 was defective as the members who signed the notice were not workers of the Raymond Synthetics.
3. A bare reading of Ss. 5, 7 and 8 of the Act makes it clear that it is not incumbent upon the Registrar of Trade Unions to hear the existing unions before registering a trade union under S. 8 of the Act. The power is administrative in nature and is not quasi-judicial. In this regard this Court endorses the view of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Kesoram Rayon Workmens' Union v. Registrar of Trade Unions [A.I.R 1967 Cal. 507], as also the view taken by our own High Court in the case of North Eastern Railway Mazdoor, Rail Mazdoor Bhawan, Aligar, Gorakhpur v. Registrar of Trade Unions, Kanpur [1969 L.& I.C 209] and North Eastern Railway Employees Union, Gorakhpur v. Registrar of Trade Unions, Uttar Pradesh, Kanpur [1975 L. & I. C. 860].
4. The power is conferred upon the Registrar to cancel the registration if he is satisfied that the certificate has been obtained by fraud or mistake after providing an opportunity of a hearing to the trade union which has been registered. The power can be exercised by the Registrar suo motu on receipt of information through other sources. The petitioners may make representation to the Registrar specifying the necessary facts before him that the respondent 4 has been granted registration by mistake and if such a representation is made it is expected that the Registrar, Trade Unions, will look into the matter and satisfy himself whether any action should be initiated under S. 10 of the Act. To satisfy himself, the Registrar is fully empowered to make necessary enquiries. In the present proceedings under Art. 226 of the Constitution it is not open to this Court to examine the correctness or otherwise of the registration certificate granted in favour of respondent 4 and as such the petitioners are not entitled to any relief.
5. Subject to the directions given above, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
Comments