Page 1

C.A. @ SLP(C) NOS. 31173-31174 OF 2010                          1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10129 OF 2010

R.G.D’SOUZA           ………APPELLANT

Vs.

POONA EMPLOYEES UNION & ANR.    ………RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

V.GOPALA GOWDA, J.  The  appellant  has  filed  this  appeal  

questioning the correctness of the Judgment and  

order dated 25.2.2009 passed in W.P. No.4048  of  

2008  by  the  Division  Bench  of  High  Court  of  

Judicature  at  Bombay  affirming  the  order  of  

Industrial Court, Pune dated 11.04.2008 whereby  

the  Industrial  Court  set  aside  the  order  of  

Additional  Registrar,  cancelling  the  

REPORTABLE

Page 2

C.A. @ SLP(C) NOS. 31173-31174 OF 2010                          2

Registration Certificate of the Poona Employees  

Union-the respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred  

to as the Trade Union), urging various facts and  

legal contentions.

2. The  factual  matrix  and  the  rival  legal  

contentions are briefly stated hereunder with a  

view  to  find  out  as  to  whether  the  impugned  

Judgment and order warrants interference by this  

Court under its appellate jurisdiction.

The appellant 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 Sena (“BKS” for short) pending before the  

Industrial Court. The appellant claimed that he  

was an active member in the Labour movement and  

an  interested  party  and  therefore,  filed  an  

application under Section 10 of the Trade Unions  

Act,  1926  (for  short  “the  Act”)  before  the  

Additional  Registrar  of  Trade  Unions  seeking

Page 3

C.A. @ SLP(C) NOS. 31173-31174 OF 2010                          3

cancellation of the Certificate of Registration  

of the Trade Union on the ground that the same  

was  obtained  by  fraud,  mistake  or  

misrepresentation.  

The  ground  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 appeal under Section 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

Page 4

C.A. @ SLP(C) NOS. 31173-31174 OF 2010                          4

Industrial  Court,  the  appellant  preferred  writ  

petition No. 4048 of 2008 before the High Court  

of Bombay under Article 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 the petition:

(i)  Whether the appellant had locus standi to  

invoke the proceedings under Section 10 of  

the Trade Unions Act, 1926?

(ii)  Whether  the  Registration  Certificate  

obtained by fraud or mistake by the first  

respondent-Trade Union and so liable to be  

cancelled?

5. The High Court rejected the submissions made  

on  behalf  of  the  appellant  and  held  that  the  

appellant had 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.

Page 5

C.A. @ SLP(C) NOS. 31173-31174 OF 2010                          5

6. Mr. C. U. Singh, the learned senior counsel on  

behalf  of  the  appellant  has  argued  that  the  

Industrial Court completely mixed up the issues  

while  answering  the  questions  of  law  raised  

before it. It is urged by him that at the time of  

applying  for  the  registration,  the  Trade  Union  

did not follow the provisions under Sections 4  

and 6 of the Act. The Trade Union ought to have  

specifically  mentioned  the  name/names  of  any  

establishment  or  nature  of  any  

industry/industries in which the persons employed  

were to be united or combined. In the absence of  

mentioning the name of industry and non-inclusion  

of the same in the schedule in the application in  

the  prescribed  form  is  a  gross  mistake  on  the  

part of the Trade Union. Our attention was also  

drawn to the application submitted by the Trade  

Union before the Registrar of Trade Unions for  

its  registration.  Further,  the  learned  senior  

counsel  urged  on  the  point  of  requirement  of  

specific mention of the object or purpose in the  

application for registration by the Trade Union

Page 6

C.A. @ SLP(C) NOS. 31173-31174 OF 2010                          6

by relying upon  Indian Express Newspapers (Bom)  

Employees  Union  v.  K.M.  Desai  &  Ors.1 and  

Maharashtra  Engg.  Plastic  &  General  Kamgar  v.  

Chamundi Petroleum & Ors.2 in support of his case.

7.  It  is  also  contented  by  the  learned  senior  

counsel  that  the  registration  was  obtained  by  

mistake or fraud by the Trade Union and the same  

was not examined by either the Industrial Court  

or the High Court.  

8. He further contended that the details of the  

office bearers of the Trade Union were not given  

in the Schedule-I of the list of officers as per  

the prescribed Form ‘A’, relevant column 5, under  

Section  5(1)(c)  of  the  Central  Trade  Union  

Regulations, 1938. In support of the said legal  

contention  he  has  placed  reliance  upon  the  

decision of this Court in Forbes Forbes Campbell  

& Co. Ltd. v. Engineering Mazdoor Sabha3, wherein  

with regard to recognition of a Trade Union this  

Court held that filing in the form by furnishing  

details is mandatory, and that form and rule must  1  1995 I CLR 677 2  2007 1 CLR 810  3  (1979) 1 SCC 14

Page 7

C.A. @ SLP(C) NOS. 31173-31174 OF 2010                          7

be read in tandem. It was contended that the said  

decision  with  all  fours  is  applicable  in  

justification  of  cancellation  of  Registration  

Certificate.

9. It was further contended by the learned senior  

counsel for the appellant that the High Court has  

erred in law in interpreting the phrase ‘mistake’  

occurred under Section 10(b) of the Act stating  

that the legislative wisdom which excludes an act  

of mistake the power of review can be exercised  

by the Registrar of Trade Unions and the order of  

cancellation of its Certificate of Registration  

can be made, but the High Court has erroneously  

held that registration cannot be cancelled by the  

Registrar in exercise of the power by him under  

Section 10 of the Act.  

10. Further, the learned senior counsel placing  

strong  reliance  upon  Section  4  of  the  Act,  

pointed out that the Amendment in view of the  

first proviso to Section 4 of the Act, which  

mandates that no Trade Union of workmen shall be  

registered unless at least ten percent or one

Page 8

C.A. @ SLP(C) NOS. 31173-31174 OF 2010                          8

hundred  of  the  workmen  whichever  is  less,  

engaged  or  employed  in  the  establishment  or  

industry  with  which  it  is  connected  are  the  

members  of  such  Trade  Union,  on  the  date  of  

making  of  application  for  registration.  The  

second  proviso  states  that  no  Trade  Union  of  

workmen shall be registered unless it has on the  

date of making application not less than seven  

persons  as  its  members,  who  are  the  workmen  

engaged  or  employed  in  the  establishment  or  

industry  with  which  it  is  connected.  Such  

requirement under Section 4 and its proviso is a  

statutory  legal  requirement  for  either  

registered  Trade  Union  or  continues  as  a  

registered Trade Union even after the amendment  

to  the  Act  by  bringing  an  Amendment  to  its  

constitution  is  the  legal  requirement  in  

accordance  with  the  aforesaid  provisos.  

Therefore,  he  contends  that  non-compliance  of  

the said legal requirement by the Trade Union  

even after the amendment to the Act has invited  

the  cancellation  of  its  registration.  This

Page 9

C.A. @ SLP(C) NOS. 31173-31174 OF 2010                          9

cancellation was done in the instant case by the  

Registrar of Trade Unions at the instance of the  

appellant. Since the same was not considered by  

the High Court, the impugned judgment and order  

is liable to be set aside.

11. On the other hand, Mr. Colin Gonsalves, the  

learned senior counsel on behalf of Trade Union,  

sought  to  justify  the  impugned  Judgment  and  

order passed by the High Court by affirming the  

Judgment  of  the  Industrial  Court  by  placing  

strong  reliance  upon  the  fact  that  the  Trade  

Union has been actively working for the welfare  

of  labourers  since  1986.  Cancellation  of  the  

Registration  Certificate  by  the  Registrar  of  

Trade Unions at the instance of the appellant is  

totally  impermissible  under  Section  10  of  the  

Act.  As  per  Section  10(a)  of  the  Act,  the  

Registrar of Trade Unions can take cognizance of  

the cancellation on application by a Trade Union  

and not that of an individual. It was contended  

that  the  appellant  had  no  locus  standi under  

Section  10(a)  of  the  Act  to  challenge  the

Page 10

C.A. @ SLP(C) NOS. 31173-31174 OF 2010                          10

Registration  Certificate  issued  by  the  

Additional Registrar of Trade Unions. It is also  

urged by him that as per Section 10(a) of the  

Act the mistake ought to be on the part of the  

applicant and could not be on the part of the  

Registering  Authority  in  support  of  the  said  

contention  and  legal  position,  the  learned  

senior counsel has relied upon the judgment of  

Karnataka High Court in the case of  Registrar,  

Trade Unions, Mysore  v. M. Mariswamy4, wherein  

the Court held as under:-

“Index  Note:  (A)  Trade  Unions  Act  (1926),  Section  10(b)-  Withdrawal  or  cancellation  of  registration  on  ground  of  ‘mistake must have been on the  part of the applicant Union and  not on the part of the Registrar  himself-  withdrawal  or  cancellation cannot be made for  the  mistake  of  the  Registrar  himself.”

12. On the point of disclosure of the object,  

the  learned  senior  counsel  placed  reliance  on  

B.P.L.  Group  of  Companies  Karmikara  Sangha  v.  

Commissioner  of  Labour5 in  support  of  the  

4   1974 LAB I.C. 695 5  2001 91 L.L.N. 599

Page 11

C.A. @ SLP(C) NOS. 31173-31174 OF 2010                          11

submission made as stated above.  

13. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf  

of  the  Trade  Union  further  justified  the  

impugned  judgment  on  three  grounds.  The  

authorisation and approval of the registration  

of the Trade Union was made by the Registrar of  

Trade Unions. In the absence of prohibition or  

prevention  under  the  Statute  from  being  a  

general Trade Union, non-furnishing the name of  

the industry or industries under Schedule III in  

the relevant column Sl. No. 5 of the application  

form it is specifically mentioned “any” industry  

means “all”, the object of registration of the  

Trade Union further fortifies the stand taken by  

the  Trade  Union  that  it  is  a  general  Trade  

Union, where it is empowered to have enrolment  

of  workmen  from  all  the  industries  which  are  

situated  within  the  Pune  District.  Non-

furnishing the name of the industries in respect  

of  which  the  Trade  Union  has  been  registered  

does  not  vitiate  its  registration  in  law.  

Therefore,  non-furnishing  the  names  of

Page 12

C.A. @ SLP(C) NOS. 31173-31174 OF 2010                          12

industries in the Schedule III portion to the  

application  in  the  prescribed  form  is  only  

superfluous  and  making  a  big  issue  in  this  

regard for justification for the cancellation of  

Certificate of Registration of the Trade Union  

is  wholly  untenable  in  law.  Non-furnishing  of  

the names of industries in Schedule III to the  

application  due  to  inadvertence  cannot  be  

attributed as fraud or mistake on the part of  

the Trade Union to get its registration with the  

Registrar  of  Trade  Unions  and  cancellation  of  

the same is not permissible in law. It is not  

the form, but the substance of the matter and  

substantial compliance of the details that are  

furnished  in  the  prescribed  form  ‘A’  by  the  

Trade Union that matters, this has been done in  

the  case  on  hand  by  the  Trade  Union  and  

therefore, the impugned Judgment & order passed  

by the High Court is legal and valid.  Further,  

in response to the reliance placed upon the two  

judgments  namely,  Indian  Express  Newspapers  

(Bom)  Employees  Union  (supra) and  Chamundi

Page 13

C.A. @ SLP(C) NOS. 31173-31174 OF 2010                          13

Petroleum Case (supra) by senior counsel for the  

appellants, the learned senior counsel for the  

Trade  Union  submitted  that  they  are  

distinguishable from the present case on hand.  

In the  Indian Express Newspapers  case (supra),  

the constitution of the respondent-Trade Union  

which  consisted  of  both  journalists  and  non-

journalists  working  in  the  respondent-company  

(Indian Express) only mentioned the objects of  

the union in Schedule ‘A’ as “printing press”  

and  did  not  bear  an  entry  of  the  newspaper  

establishment  or  a  newspaper  industry.  It  was  

held in that case that the Constitution of the  

respondent-Trade  Union  did  not  permit  it  to  

enrol  journalists  and  non-journalists  employed  

by the respondent-Company and that a newspaper  

industry  cannot  be  equated  with  the  “printing  

press” industry as publication of newspaper and  

periodical involves many more functions. In the  

case  of  Chamundi  Petroleum  (supra) the  

constitution of the Trade Union did not say that  

it  is  in  relation  to  workmen  of  working  in

Page 14

C.A. @ SLP(C) NOS. 31173-31174 OF 2010                          14

petrol  pumps.  Therefore,  the  reliance  placed  

upon the aforesaid two judgments by the senior  

counsel on behalf of the appellant to justify  

the order of cancellation of the Registration of  

the Trade Union are wholly untenable in law as  

these  cases  do  not  apply  to  the  facts  and  

circumstances of the case on hand as both the  

cases are distinguishable.  

14.  We  have  heard  both  the  learned  senior  

counsels  for  the  parties.  After  examining  the  

correctness of the legal contentions, we are in  

respectful agreement with the concurrent finding  

and reasons recorded by the High Court as well  

as  the  Industrial  Court  for  the  following  

reasons.

15.  As  per  Section  10  of  the  Act,  the  

Certificate of Registration of a Trade Union may  

be withdrawn or cancelled by the Registrar of  

Trade  Union  either  on  application  of  a  Trade  

Union inviting the attention of the Registrar of  

Trade Unions or the Registrar may suo moto take  

cognizance under the said section. There is no

Page 15

C.A. @ SLP(C) NOS. 31173-31174 OF 2010                          15

mention in the said provision about cancellation  

of Registration of Trade Union on application by  

any other person. The said section permits the  

Authority  to  cancel  the  registration  of  the  

trade  union  if,  it  is  obtained  by  fraud  or  

mistake, but does not permit the Authority to  

cancel the certificate of registration if, the  

same  is  granted  by  mistake  due  to  incorrect  

assessment  or  non-application  of  mind  or  

mechanical act on the part of the Authority.

16.  Even  for  the  sake  of  argument,  it  is  

accepted by us that the mistake is on the part  

of the Trade Union and in the opinion of the  

Registrar  of  Trade  Unions  in  exercise  of  his  

powers under Section 10 of the Act cancels the  

Certification  of  Registration  of  the  Trade  

Union, then it must be preceded by an enquiry,  

followed  by  show  cause  notice,  disclosing  

grounds for initiating action so that the same  

can  be  answered  by  the  noticee  Union  

effectively. This was not done in the present

Page 16

C.A. @ SLP(C) NOS. 31173-31174 OF 2010                          16

case on hand and the same has been rightly held  

by  the  High  Court.  Further  Rule  8(2)  of  the  

Bombay  Trade  Union  Regulations  1927  clearly  

states that:-

“2)  The  Registrar  on  receiving  an  application for withdrawal or cancellation  of registration shall, before granting the  application,  verify  himself  that  the  application  was  approved  in  general  meeting of the Trade Union if it was not  so approved, that it has the approval of  the majority members of the Trade Union.  For this purpose, the Registrar may call  for  such  further  particulars  as  he  may  deem necessary and may examine any officer  of the Union.”

     The above said rule was not fully complied  

with by the Registrar of Trade Unions and the  

appellant has not submitted any approval granted  

by a general body meeting or by majority of the  

Trade Union for the withdrawal or cancellation  

of the registration of the Trade Union. The act  

of fraud or mistake cannot be attributed to the  

Trade  Union  since  the  information  provided  by  

the Trade Union for registering itself is not by  

fraud or mistake as mandated under Section 10 of

Page 17

C.A. @ SLP(C) NOS. 31173-31174 OF 2010                          17

the Act.  

17. With respect to the provisions of Sections  

4, 5, and 6 of the Act & Rules, which provide  

for furnishing the details in the application to  

be  submitted  for  registration  of  the  Trade  

Union. The above said provisions of the sections  

clearly state that they must be complied with  

for  the  applying-Union  to  be  entitled  for  

registration. However, it is essential to note  

that the 1st proviso of Section 4; clause (aa),  

(b) and (c) of Section 5 and clause (ee) & (hh)  

of Section 6 were inserted to the Act only by  

the  Amendment  Act  of  31  of  2001,  w.e.f.  

09.01.2002,  whereas  the  Trade  Union  was  

registered in the year 1986 when part of the  

above  said  provisions  were  not  present.  

Therefore, in the present case on hand, although  

it was necessary for the Trade Union to comply  

with and provide all the necessary details under  

the above said provisions that were relevant at  

the time of registration, the Registrar either

Page 18

C.A. @ SLP(C) NOS. 31173-31174 OF 2010                          18

by  mistake  or  due  to  incorrect  assessment  or  

non-application  of  mind  may  have  issued  a  

Certificate of Registration to the Trade Union.  

This  official  act  by  the  Registrar  of  Trade  

Unions cannot be nullified by him under Section  

10 of the Act, but can only be rectified by the  

appellate  authority  or  writ  court  as  rightly  

opined  by  the  High  Court  in  the  impugned  

judgment.

18. In our considered view, the High Court has  

correctly  held  that  the  word  “any”  in  the  

application  form  and  the  Rules  of  the  Trade  

Union  under  Section  6  of  the  Act  can  be  

considered as “all”. The High Court has rightly  

held that the word “any” could 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

Page 19

C.A. @ SLP(C) NOS. 31173-31174 OF 2010                          19

(w.e.f.  9.1.2002)  was  inserted  in  the  Trade  

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

Page 20

C.A. @ SLP(C) NOS. 31173-31174 OF 2010                          20

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 Form ‘A’ being 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  learned  

senior counsel for the appellant is not relevant  

in the case on hand.

19. In the light of the above discussion and  

reasons assigned by us, we are of the considered  

view that the High Court has rightly affirmed  

the decision of the Industrial Court, wherein it  

has  rightly  set  aside  the  cancellation  of  

Certificate of Registration of the Trade Union

Page 21

C.A. @ SLP(C) NOS. 31173-31174 OF 2010                          21

holding that it is not legal or valid. We find  

no valid or cogent reasons to interfere with the  

same  in  exercise  of  this  Court’s  Appellate  

Jurisdiction. The appeal is dismissed. No costs.

                      ……………………………………………………………J.   [V. GOPALA GOWDA]    

  ……………………………………………………………J. [C. NAGAPPAN]

New Delhi,                                   November 18, 2014