MAHARASHTRA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION Vs. F PAUL ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants Maharashtra Industrial Corporation Employees' Association has filed this appeal as provided under Section 11 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 challenging the order passed by the Additional Registrar of Trade Unions, Bombay Dist. dated August 10, 1983 gazetted on August 9, 1984 on the ground that the order of cancellation of registration dated August 10, 1983 is passed by the authority under Sub-section (b) of Section 10 of Trade Unions Act, 1926, wherein the authority has cancelled the registration of 51 Trade Unions including the present appellant who is at serial No. 51 on the ground that the concerned Unions have wilfully and after due notice from the Registrar, continued to contravene the provisions of Section 28 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and Rule 17 of the Bombay Trade Unions Regulations 1927 and failed to send the Registrar all prescribed data, the annual general statement of accounts in the annual return form no. 1 for the year ending December 31, 1981. It is the case of the appellant that the ground relied upon by the authority for not submitting the return itself was not proper as the appellant-Union had vide letter dated July 14, 1983 viz. , before passing of the final order for cancellation of registration, had submitted the return and the same was acknowledged by the office of the Commissioner of Labour, Bombay.

(2.) SECTION 10 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 deals with the cancellation of registration, which reads as under:

(3.) IT is the case of the appellant that the impugned order by cancelling the registration as contemplated under Sub-clause (b) of Section 10 of the Act was passed on August 10, 1983 and the same was gazetted on August 9, 1984. According to the appellant, necessary returns as contemplated under the Act was furnished by the appellant union in favour of authority n July 14, 1983 meaning thereby that the order in question was passed by the authority on August 10, 1983, the authority has received the required annual return. When the appellant has filed this appeal and during the pendency of the appeal, an application for stay was moved and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the impugned order of registration was stayed and appellant's registration is continued. During the hearing, it is also submitted by the counsel for the appellant that as per the provisions, the appellant is furnishing the annual return in favour of the authority and registration of the appellant is continued.