Jal Vigyan Anusandhan Karamchari Union vs Registrar, Trade Union and State of Uttarakhand

Tarun Agarwala, J.—Heard Mr. Pankaj Miglani, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mrs. Beena Pandey, the learned Standing Counsel for the State of U.P.

The Petitioner''s trade union was registered under the Trade Unions Act before the Registrar of Trade Union of Uttar Pradesh at Kanpur. At the relevant moment of time, the Petitioner''s trade union was located in the district of Saharanpur, but, subsequently district Haridwar was carved out from district Saharanpur in the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh and Bahadrabad area came in the district of Haridwar. In the year 2000, the State of Uttarakhand was created under the U.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000 and district Haridwar came in the State of Uttarakhand. Accordingly, the registration of the Petitioner''s trade union was required to be registered with the Registrar of Trade Union of Uttarakhand, but, the same was not done and, consequently, the activities of the Petitioner continued to be governed and supervised by the Registrar, Trade Unions, Uttar Pradesh under the Trade Unions Act.

It transpires that the Registrar, Trade Unions, Uttar Pradesh issued a notice dated 02.04.2003 directing the Petitioner to show cause as to why its registration should not be cancelled for not submitting the returns for the period 1995 to 2001. It seems that the show cause notice was duly received and that the Petitioner did not appear nor filed any reply and, eventually, the Registrar of Trade Unions, Uttar Pradesh issued an order dated 21st July, 2004 cancelling the registration of the Petitioner''s trade union.

The Petitioner, being aggrieved, filed the Writ Petition No. 606 of 2005 (M/S) before this Court, which was disposed of, by an order dated 15.05.2006, directing the Petitioner to move an appropriate representation before the Registrar, Trade Unions, Uttar Pradesh indicating that it had No. jurisdiction to cancel the registration of the Petitioner since it was outside the territorial jurisdiction.

Pursuant to the direction of the court, the Petitioner moved an appropriate representation before the Registrar, Trade Unions, Uttar Pradesh at Kanpur praying that the order dated 21st July, 2004 should be recalled, contending that it had No. jurisdiction to pass such an order since the Petitioner''s trade union now fell in the territorial limits of Uttarakhand and not in Uttar Pradesh. The representation of the Petitioner was rejected by the Registrar, Trade Unions by its order of 14th July, 2006 on two grounds, namely, that such objection should have been raised by the Petitioner pursuant to the show cause notice received by him and that the Registrar, Trade Unions had No. jurisdiction to review its order. The Registrar accordingly rejected the representation by an order of 14th July, 2006.

The Petitioner, being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, has filed the present writ petition.

The Registrar of the Trade Unions are appointed u/s 3 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), which specifies that the appropriate Government would appoint a person to be the Registrar of the Trade Union. The appropriate Government is the State Government as defined u/s 2 of the Act. u/s 2(f)(ii) of the Act, a Registrar in relation to any Trade Union means a Registrar appointed for the State in which the head or the registered office, as the case may be, of the Trade Union is situated.

In the light of the aforesaid, it was imperative upon the Registrar to see and decide the question as to whether the trade union of the Petitioner is located in the State of Uttar Pradesh or in the State of Uttarakhand and if it found that the Petitioner''s union was located in the State of Uttarakhand, the Registrar was required to recall its order since it had No. jurisdiction to cancel the registration of a union which was outside its territorial jurisdiction. This has not been done and the Registrar has taken an escape route indicating that No. review application lies. When the court directs the Registrar to decide the question of jurisdiction, it had No. business to sidetrack the issue by contending that it had No. power to review its order. The court is of the opinion that where the order is void and without jurisdiction, the Registrar has the power to recall its order.

In the light of the aforesaid, the court is of the opinion that the impugned orders dated 21.07.2004 and 14.07.2006 cannot be sustained and are quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The Petitioner will move an appropriate application before the Registrar, Trade Unions, Kanpur for transferring the registration of the Petitioner''s union to the appropriate authority. If such an application is filed by the Petitioner within four weeks from today, the Registrar will consider the entire matter and pass orders accordingly.