Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-op. Bank Employees Union vs The Registrar of Trade Unions/Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Commissioner of Labour and P. Kannabiran General Secretary Tamil Nadu State Co-op. Bank Staff Union

P. Jyothimani, J.—The writ Petitioner is stated to be Trade Union, having minimum required membership of the employees of the Tamil

Nadu State Apex Co-op. Bank, as required u/s 9-A of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (hereinafter referred to as the ""Act""), which contemplates

either ten per cent or hundred members of the sanctioned strength of the Bank employees. It is stated that the Petitioner-union was registered in the

year 1958 and it has entered into 8 Wage Settlements with the bank.

It is the case of the Petitioner that the third Respondent, to start a fresh trade union in the year 2004, stating that the sanctioned strength of the

members as 374 with 38 members, have applied to the Registrar. It was the case of the Petitioner that the members of the Petitioner-union were

also shown as members of the third Respondent-union and there appears to have been some objections raised and the matter was ultimately

referred to this Court and in the writ petition, there was an order directing the Registrar to pass orders. It was thereafter, the Registrar, namely, the

first Respondent has issued a certificate in favour of the third Respondent in the year 2007.

The complaint of the Petitioner is that after the writ petition was disposed of on 28.2.2007, the Petitioner has made many representations stating

that they are holding 95 per cent of the total numbers of the members of the employees of the bank as its members and therefore, there is no

possibility for the third Respondent to have either ten per cent or hundred members. Therefore, such representation will be only a manipulation.

However, without conducting any enquiry or giving opportunity to the Petitioner, the Registrar has passed orders. It is not in dispute that the

impugned Registration Certificate has been stayed by this Court, by virtue of which, the third Respondent-union has not functioned as on date.

It is brought to the notice of this Court as to the effect of Section 10 of the Act especially 10(b), which is as follows:

if the Registrar is satisfied that the certificate has been obtained by fraud or mistake, or that the Trade Union has ceased to exist or has wilfully and

after notice from the Registrar contravened any provision of this Act or allowed any rule to continue in force which is inconsistent with any such

provision, or has rescinded any rule providing for any matter provision for which is required by Section 6.

The Registrar has got a jurisdiction to cancel the registration if there is a fraud or mistake was committed in obtaining the certificate of registration.

Mr. Yashod Vardhan, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that in spite of the fact that many representations were made,

however ignoring such representations, the Registrar has passed orders and therefore, the Petitioner must be given an opportunity to file an

application u/s 10 of the Act for the purpose of cancellation of registration.

Mr. V. Manohar, learned Counsel for the third Respondent while stoutly opposing the same would submit that inasmuch as the Registration

Certificate has already been issued, the presumption is that the Registrar was satisfied about the confirmation of all requirements as per the Act,

and there is no necessity for this Court to interfere with the validity or otherwise of the certificate.

I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, learned Special Government Pleader for Respondents 1 and 2 and the learned

Counsel for the third Respondent.

I am of the view that Section 10 of the Act contemplates a jurisdiction on the part of the Registrar to cancel the certificate of registration, when it

comes to his knowledge that a fraud has been played or mistake has crept in issuing certificate of registration and taking note of the fact that as per

the earlier order of this Court dated 28.2.2007, the Petitioner-union has been making repeated representations to the fact that 90% of the total

strength of the employees of the bank are the members of the Petitioner-union, to put an end to this dispute, the first Respondent should be

directed to conduct proper enquiry after giving opportunity to both the Petitioner as well as the third Respondent and pass appropriate orders

regarding the correctness or otherwise of the certificate issued to the third Respondent under the impugned certificate. Accordingly, without setting

aside the impugned certificate issued by the first Respondent, I permit the Petitioner to make proper representation as required u/s 10 of the Act

for the purpose of cancellation of certificate of registration and if such representation is made by the Petitioner-union within ten days from the date

of receipt of a copy of this order, the first Respondent-Registrar shall consider after giving opportunity to both the Petitioner as well as the third

Respondent and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks thereafter. Since there has been an

order of stay pending the writ petition, the status quo prevailing as on date shall be continued in operation till the Registrar passes the order as

stated above.

With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.