MRF MAZDOOR SANG Vs. COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR
LAWS(APH)-2013-10-102
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on October 03,2013

Mrf Mazdoor Sang Appellant
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

TATA ELECTRIC COMPANIES OFFICERS GUILD V. REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS [REFERRED TO]
ASSOCIATION OF ENGINEERING WORKERS V. DOCKYARD LABOUR UNION [REFERRED TO]
MAHARASHTRA POWER DEVELOPMENT CORPN. LTD. V. DABHOL POWER CO. [REFERRED TO]
NAGDA RASHTRA SEVAK KARMACHARI CONGRESS V. INDUSTRIAL COURT [REFERRED TO]
CHINTAMANRAO VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADRAS VS. V G ROW:THE UNION OF INDIA AND THE STATE OF TRAVANCORE COCHIN [REFERRED TO]
RAM PRASAD NARAYAN SAHI VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
WAZIR CHAND VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
TIKA RAMJI OTHERS VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
CHAUBE JAGDISH PRASAD VS. GANGA PRASAD CHATURVEDI [REFERRED TO]
JYOTI PERSHAD MAHTAB SINGH SURENDAR DEV GAUR VS. ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE UNION TERRITORY OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
BISHAN DEVI VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
ALL INDIA BANK EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION THE STATE BANK OF INDIA STAFF UNION PETITIONERS ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR INDIA THE PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION ALL INDIA STATE BANK STAFF FEDERATION VS. NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL:NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL BANK DISPUTES :NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL BANK DISPUTES [REFERRED TO]
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS MADRAS NATHELLA SAMPATHU CHETTY PURAN SINGH KEWAL KRISHAN KRISHAN LAL ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR INDIA SONI NARANDAS NAGJIBHAI PUKHRAJ M S VENKITANARAYANA IYER VS. NATHELLA SAMPATHU CHETTY:THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS MADRAS:THE STATE OF PUNJAB:THE STATE OF PUNJAB:THE STATE OF PUNJAB:THE STATE OF PUNJAB:THE STATE OF PUNJAB:D R KOHLI:THE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MYSORE VS. SHIVABASAPPA SHIVAPPA MAKAPUR [REFERRED TO]
TILKAYAT SHRI GOVINDLALJI MAHARAJ TRIYAMBAK LAL GOSWAMI SHN CILANSHYAMLAIJI TILKAYAT SHRI GOWINDLAIJI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
SHYAM KISHORI DEVI VS. PATNA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
HARI CHAND SHARDA VS. MIZO DISTRICT COUNCIL [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. THAKUR BHARAT SINGH [REFERRED TO]
MANEKLAL CHBOTALAL VS. M G MAKWANA [REFERRED TO]
SATWANT SINGH SAWHNEY ASSISTANT OM PRAKASH KAPUR VS. D RAMARATHNAM PASSPORT OFFICER NEW DELHI:CHIEF PASSPORT OFFICER NEW DELHI [REFERRED TO]
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE U P WAREHOUSING CORPORATION VS. CHANDRA KIRAN TYAGI [REFERRED TO]
D F O SOUTH KHERI VS. RAM SANEHI SINGH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ASSAM VS. MAHENDRA KUMAR DAS [REFERRED TO]
DAMYANTI NARANGA THE HINDI SAHITYA SAMMELAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
NAWABKHAN ABBASKHAN VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
GOBIND VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
INDIRA NEHRU GANDHI SHRI RAJ NARAIN VS. RAJ NARAIN INDIRA NEHRU GANDHI [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA CHATURBHAI M PATEL AND COMPANY VS. CHATURBHAI M PATEL AND CO :UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
FATEHCHAND HIMMATLAL MAHADEO VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
MOHINDER SINGH GILL VS. CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER NEW DELHI [REFERRED TO]
PATHUMMA K M KUNHAHAMMAD VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
MANEKA GANDHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
P N KAUSHAL LAXMI NARAIN SHAM LAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
BISHAMBHAR DAYAL CHANDRA MOHAN JAGDISH PRASAD AGARWAL HARYANA DALL INDUSTRIES KALYANMAL DEEP CHAND AGGARWAL TRADING COMPANY ATTAR SINGH SANTOSH KUMAR J B FLOUR MILLS ANNUPCHAND SHYAMLAL K VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
P P ENTERPRISES VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
A R ANTULAY VS. RAMDAS SRINIWAS NAYAK [REFERRED TO]
RAM AND SHYAM COMPANY VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
OLGA TELLIS VAYYAPVRI KUPPUSAMI VS. BOMBAY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION:STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA VS. L K RATNA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. MAHARAJA DHARMANDER PRASAD SINGH:MAHARANI RAJLAXMI KUMARI DEVI [REFERRED TO]
ASOM RASTRABHASA PRACHAR SAMITI VS. STATE OF ASSAM [REFERRED TO]
GWALIOR RATON SILK MANUFACTURING WEAVING CO LIMITED VS. CUSTODIAN OF VESTED FORESTS PALGHAT [REFERRED TO]
SHRISHT DHAWAN VS. SHAW BROTHERS [REFERRED TO]
SVENSKA HANDELSBANKEN VS. INDIAN CHARGE CHROME [REFERRED TO]
GOWRISHANKAR VS. JOSHI AMBA SHANKAR FAMILY TRUST [REFERRED TO]
WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION VS. REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS MUMBAI [REFERRED TO]
M S JAYARAJ VS. COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE KERALA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. ELPHANSTONE SPINNING AND WEAVING CO LTD [REFERRED TO]
DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA VS. HARI PRAKASH [REFERRED TO]
ANWAR HASAN KHAN VS. MOHAMMAD SHAFI [REFERRED TO]
ROSHAN DEEN VS. PREETI LAL [REFERRED TO]
CHAIRMAN SBI VS. ALL ORISSA STATE BANK OFFICER ASSOCIATION [REFERRED TO]
J P BANSAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE VS. C K RAJAN [REFERRED TO]
RAM PREETI YADAV VS. U P BOARD OF HIGH SCHOOL AND INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION [REFERRED TO]
DHARAM DUTT VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
DELHI FINANCIAL CORPN VS. RAJIV ANAND [REFERRED TO]
A C ANANTHASWAMY VS. BORAIAH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF JHARKHAND VS. GOVIND SINGH [REFERRED TO]
CHIEF ENGINEER M S E B VS. SURESH RAGHUNATH BHOKARE [REFERRED TO]
SANGRAMSINH P GAEKWAD VS. SHANTADEVI P GEAKWAD [REFERRED TO]
BHAURAO DAGDU PARALKAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
ANIL RISHI VS. GURBAKSH SINGH [REFERRED TO]
ARUN KUMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
POPCORN ENTERTAINMENT VS. CITY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPN [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPN LTD VS. MADDULA RATNAVALLI [REFERRED TO]
JAPANI SAHOO VS. CHANDRA SEKHAR MOHANTY [REFERRED TO]
CARONA LTD VS. PARVATHY SWAMINATHAN AND SONS [REFERRED TO]
U P POWER CORPORATION LTD VS. AYODHYA PRASAD MISHRA [REFERRED TO]
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT VS. VICE CHANCELLOR [REFERRED TO]
SARDAR ASSOCIATES VS. PUNJAB AND SIND BANK [REFERRED TO]
S KHUSHBOO VS. KANNIAMMAL [REFERRED TO]
ALVA ALUMINIUM LTD VS. GABRIEL INDIA LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
ANDHRA PRADESH SCHEDULED TRIBES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION VS. ADITYA PRATAP BHANJ DEV [REFERRED TO]
IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION VS. GOVT OF A P PUBLIC ENTERPRISES II DEPT [REFERRED TO]
SAMALA GANGADHAR VS. CH GANGARAM [REFERRED TO]
DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER VS. DISTRICT JUDGE WEST GODAVARI [REFERRED TO]
Philips Workers Union VS. Registrar of Trade Unions [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWAT SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
BRAJNANDAN SHARMA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
A L N NARAYANAN CHETTYAR VS. OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE, HIGH COURT RANGOON [REFERRED TO]
M. SITHARAMACHARY VS. SENIOR DEPUTY INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

DEVI PRODUCTS VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2023-2-768] [REFERRED TO]
L. M. CORPORATION VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2023-1-1928] [REFERRED TO]
MILAP ENTERPRISE VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-2023-1-1896] [REFERRED TO]
ARSH TRADERS VS. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER [LAWS(GJH)-2023-2-2095] [REFERRED TO]
SIDDHARTH ASSOCIATES VS. STATE TAX OFFICER, GHATAK 103 (GANDHIDHAM) [LAWS(GJH)-2023-1-1913] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The action of the Deputy Registrar of Trade Unions and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Sangareddy (hereinafter called the "Registrar"), in cancelling the registration certificate of the petitioner-trade union vide proceedings dated 13.06.2013, is under challenge in this Writ Petition as being arbitrary, illegal, and in violation of the provisions of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (for brevity, 'the Act'). A consequential direction is sought to the third respondent to conduct an enquiry as per law after giving the petitioner-union an opportunity of being heard.
(2.)The petitioner Union submitted an application dated 02.10.2012, for registration of their Trade Union, under Regulation 3 of the A.P. Trade Unions Regulations, 1927. The said application was received by the office of the Registrar on 16.10.2012. The Registrar issued a Certificate of Registration of the Trade Union, in Form-C in terms of the Regulation 5(1), bearing No.A/T.U/99/2012 dated 18.10.2012. Soon thereafter, on 25.10.2012 and 26.10.2012, 88 workers of the 4th respondent submitted individual letters informing the 3rd respondent that they were not the members of the Union, their I.D. Cards and other documents were obtained without their knowledge and were used for the purpose of registration of the Trade Union. The 4th respondent submitted a representation on 29.10.2012 informing the 3rd respondent that over 60 workers, whose names were found in the resolution alleged to have been passed by the petitioner Union, had submitted representations to the Management that they had no knowledge of the registration of the Union by the so called office bearers; a fraud was played on them by persons claiming to be union office bearers, while submitting papers for registration to the office of the Registrar, which needed urgent enquiry to ascertain the real facts; and a proper enquiry should be made regarding membership of the petitioner Union, and their registration cancelled.
(3.)The 4th respondent requested that registration of the petitioner Union be kept under suspension pending disposal of the enquiry, as they foresaw the possibility of clashes between the petitioner union and the other faction of workers which would cause unrest and disturbance in the factory. Enclosed to the said letter of the 4th respondent were copies of the representations of 88 workmen.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.