Rashtriya Labour Union, Through ... vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 1343 Guj

       C/SCA/2588/2019                                        CAV JUDGMENT



             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2588 of 2019

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI             Sd/-
==========================================================

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to No see the judgment ?

2     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?                              No

3     Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the             No
      judgment ?

4     Whether this case involves a substantial question of law             No

as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ?

========================================================== RASHTRIYA LABOUR UNION, THROUGH ITS, PRESIDENT SHRI S.B.CHAUDHARY Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ========================================================== Appearance:

BHARGAV KARIA AND ASSO(6631) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MANAN K PANERI(7959) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR BHARAT VYAS, ASSTT GOVT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 NOTICE SERVED BY DS(5) for the Respondent(s) No. 3 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI

Date : 29/01/2021

CAV JUDGMENT

1. Present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is filed for the purpose of seeking following reliefs:-

"A. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ or direction quashing and setting aide the Judgment and order dated 07.12.2018 passed by the Learned Industrial Court, Gujarat at Ahmedabad- Respondent No.3 in Trade Union Appeal No.02 of 2017 (Annexure-V) and order dated 25.05.2017 passed by the Respondent No.2 cancelling the Registration (Annexure-L);

B. Pending the admission and Final hearing of this Petition, this

Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the operation, implementation and execution of the Judgment and order dated 07.12.2018 passed by the Learned Industrial Court, Gujarat at Ahmedabad- Respondent No.3 in Trade Union Appeal No.02 of 2017 (Annexure-V) and order dated 25.05.2017 passed by the Respondent No.2 cancelling the Registration (Annexure-L);

      C.      ............
      D.      ............"

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner Rashtriya Labour Union is registered under the provisions of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') before the Deputy Registrar of Trade Unions, State of Gujarat way back on 27.9.1990 bearing Registration No.G/4742. The Union has espoused the cause of several labourers and made endeavour to uplift their standards.

According to the petitioner, there are as many as 989 individual members of the petitioner Union and since last 27 years, the members and the office bearers have been representing the cause of labourers before various forums, i.e. Labour Courts, Industrial Courts, Labour Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, etc. in accordance with law. Every year, in accordance with the constitution of the Union, the office bearers have been elected and as required under Section 28 of the Act, yearly returns have also been filed regularly before the respondent No.2 authority in consonance with the Gujarat Trade Union Regulations 1963 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Regulations').

2.1. It is further the case of the petitioner that one Maruti Industries, Ahmedabad filed one Special Civil Application No.19368 of 2015 before the High Court, wherein notice was issued upon workman Suresh Chandubhai Rajput. The said workman was suffering from cancer and the petitioner Union through the authorized person, namely Mr. Subhash B. Chaudhary, represented him before the High Court on 21.1.2016 and requested for some

time to make appropriate arrangement for filing appearance on his behalf i.e. on behalf of the workman. During the process, some queries were raised by by the Hon'ble Court, which were replied by Shri Chaudhary- representative of the petitioner Union and replied also with regard to the query related to his designation in the Union. According to the petitioner, on account of some inadvertence, mistakenly, it was recorded that Mr. Chaudhary is the Vice President of the Union and on 21.1.2016, on that very day, when time was sought, it was observed in the order that the affairs of the Union require scrutiny by the competent authority and for effective adjudication, the petitioner as well as the respondent No.2 authority were directed to be impleaded as party to the proceedings. According to the petitioner, surprisingly, in respect of these proceedings before the High Court, straightway, without application of mind, a show cause notice came to be issued on 9.6.2016 upon the petitioner Union under Section 10 of the Act as to why registration of the petitioner Union shall not be cancelled. The show cause notice contained basically three elements, viz. (1) that for the year 2015, Mr. S.B. Chaudhary has appeared as Vice President and General Secretary before the High Court, which has raised suspicion over the affairs of the Union and an attempt is made to misguide the Court, (2) that there is violation of the constitution of the Union regarding election of office bearers in the year 2013-2015 and (3) that the reason is that the complaints which have been filed by the petitioner Union before various authorities are found to be less genuine and by giving these three reasons, straightway, a notice for cancellation of registration is given by the authority.

2.2. The case of the petitioner is that vide letter dated 30.6.2018, a detailed reply was given explaining each and every circumstance and details have also been provided with regard to the complaints which have been filed by the petitioner Union and simultaneously,

an information was sought with regard to all documents and reports pertaining to 73 complaints filed by the petitioner Union which are sought to be less genuine but, the said information has not been supplied to the petitioner in its complete form and on 27.7.2016, a mere list of complaints came to be supplied without any further details according to the petitioner.

2.3. On receipt of the same, on 6.8.2016, the petitioner wrote a letter-cum-reply pointing out that the respondent No.2 has merely provided a list of complaints which does not contain any information in detail nor the report of the concerned Labour Officer, which has raised suspicion, and as such, since the said information was not provided, with a view to see that an appropriate representation can be made, a further request was made to supply. In addition thereto, an extension of time was sought. Respondent No.2 did not reply to the request made by the petitioner for supplying the information despite the petitioner on several occasions visited the office of the respondent No.2 but inspection was not allowed of the record under one reason or the other. Again on 26.12.2016, a letter was written requesting to supply the relevant information or permit the petitioner to inspect the record in order to see that appropriate reply can be filed with regard to the allegations which have been leveled against the petitioner. In response to the said letter, a mere 15 days' time was granted to the petitioner to file reply and nothing beyond that and according to the petitioner, in utter disregard to the principles of natural justice, straightway, an order came to be passed on 25.5.2017 canceling the registration of the petitioner Union and substantially, what has been relied upon is a passing observation made by the High Court and even for that purpose also, the petitioner is deprived of adequate opportunity.

2.4. Since the order came to be passed about cancellation of the

registration of the Union itself, several complaints across appropriate authorities have suffered on their adjudication before the authority. As a result of this, an appeal came to be filed under Section 11 of the Act read with Regulation 9 of the Regulations before learned Industrial Court, Ahmedabad. The said appeal was registered as Trade Union Appeal No.2 of 2017.

2.5. Upon issuance of the notice, on 7.9.2017, respondent No.2 vide application dated 25.9.2017 apprised the Industrial Court that the impugned order itself is self-explanatory, does not require any para-wise remarks and later on, might be on account of some circumstance, para-wise remarks at Exh.7 came to be filed with a covering letter dated 16.10.2017 and respondent No.2 also filed a reply at Exh.11 to contest the appeal. In the said appeal proceedings, an application for stay of operation and implementation of the order came to be filed at Exh.5, requesting the authority to suspend the operation of the impugned order, but the same came to be rejected on 8.5.2018 on the premise that validity of the order of cancellation of registration can only be decided after considering the evidence on record and no prima facie case for interim relief was made out and therefore, Exh.5 application came to be rejected. During the course of the proceedings of the appeal, an affidavit in examination-in-chief at Exh.27 came to be filed by Mr. S.B. Chaudhary. Cross-examination has also taken place by learned advocate for respondent No.2 but, nothing turned out and after passage of some time, a request for impleading third party also came to be filed but rejected. The petitioner after conclusion of the evidence also filed written argument on 23.8.2018. However, according to the petitioner, without considering the same, vide judgment and order dated 7.12.2018, Appeal No.2 of 2017 came to be dismissed, which is made the subject matter of the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

3. This petition was entertained by the Court while issuing the notice on 8.2.2019 and subsequently, after adjournments from time to time, it came up for consideration before this Court on 12.10.2020, wherein both learned advocates, i.e. learned advocate Mr. Manan K. Paneri for the petitioner as well as learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Bharat Vyas for the respondent State authority, have jointly requested to take up the matter for its final disposal in view of the series consequences which are falling back on the pending proceedings filed in various forums by the petitioner Union for espousing the cause of labourers and it is in that circumstance, upon specific request, this Court has considered to take up the matter for its ultimate consideration.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Manan K. Paneri appearing for the petitioner has contended that the notice of cancellation and the consequential orders which have been passed are not in consonance with the provisions of the Trade Unions Act, 1926, and by referring to Section 10 of the Act, the contention is raised that the reasons which have been assigned in the show cause notice are not at all justified and permissible for cancellation of registration of the Union itself, and as such the notice for cancellation does not satisfy the requirement of Section 10 of the Act, and as such the base of the order itself is unsustainable, hence a request is made to set aside the impugned order. In addition to that, Mr. Paneri has further submitted that respondent No.2 has miserably failed to produce any kind of evidence to prove that any contravention of the provision of the Act has taken place at the instance of the petitioner and further it has been submitted that element of willful disobedience of any of the provisions is not established at all, which is the basic requirement and rather condition precedent of exercising the jurisdiction. It has further been submitted that a bare

reading of Section 10 is providing that at least two notices are required, first for the purpose of specifying the alleged contravention and secondly if the despite notice, there is a willful contravention of any of the provisions, then second notice to be issued, as required under Section 10 of the Act, and final decision thereafter to take place. Here, the same has not taken place at all, still however, the authority has passed an order and unfortunately, learned Appellate Authority has not considered this issue at all.

4.1. Learned advocate Mr. Paneri has submitted that looking at the notice as well as the order in question including that of appeal order, it appears that substantial reliance is made on the issue of observation of the High Court in the proceeding referred to above, but unfortunately, even the High Court while the disposing the proceedings has never suggested to cancel the registration and therefore, by utilizing stray observations of the High Court made in past, registration itself is canceled, which has created an irreversible damage to the petitioner since several complaints have been lodged by the petitioner Union at various places at various Forms in accordance with law. In addition to this, Mr. Paneri has submitted that a conclusion is arrived at that some of the complaints have been found little genuine, but then to arrive at such conclusion, the report which is sought to be relied upon is not given or furnished to the petitioner, which has adversely affected the right of making effective representation. Mr. Paneri has submitted that supplying of information was requested by the petitioner on number of occasions, but under one pretext to the other, no material was supplied and for that purpose, learned advocate has drawn the attention to some of the documents attached to the petitioner compilation and then has submitted that non-supply of information has prejudicially affected petitioner's right of making effective representation, the said action is not on the touchstone of

compliance of the principles of natural justice. Hence, on this ground alone, the order in origin as well as the order of the Appellate Authority deserve to be set at naught.

4.2. Learned advocate Mr. Paneri has further contended that regarding position of Mr. S.B. Chaudhary- representative of the petitioner Union, there is no confusion for any suspicion with regard to Mr. Chaudhary in any form. Neither there is any irregularity, nor any fraud is practiced nor any any perjury has committed any time and that has been clarified by filing reply in the pending proceedings at that time, i.e. Special Civil Application No.19368 of 2015 and in the final order, the High Court has not at all passed any structure, nor any direction, nor any adverse order with regard to the conduct of the petitioner Union in any form and therefore, the cancellation which has been effected is unsustainable and not supported by valid reasons. It has further been contended that regarding filing of returns, as required under Section 28 of the Act, the petitioner Union has filed all annual returns as required and have never defaulted. On the contrary, the petitioner had produced the returns from 2006-07 till 2015, vide Exhibits-37, 38, 42, 51 to 64.22, and as such there is a grave error committed by the authorities below in coming to the conclusion that petitioner Union has failed to file the returns as required under Section 28 of the Act. In addition thereto, it has been submitted that notice for cancellation is not indicating this fact. Whereas, the order in question has covered up this issue and therefore, the authority has traveled beyond the scope of the notice itself, which is impermissible in view of series of decisions delivered by this Court. A part from that, learned advocate by drawing attention to Section 31 of the Act has submitted that even if take it for the time being that there is some lapse on the part of the petitioner Union to submit the returns as required, but then in that case, a penal

provision is provided which has prescribed a maximum penalty of Rs.50/- for failure to file a return and therefore, when that remedy is prescribed, the authority has to adopt a less drastic remedy even if that failure has occurred. But, here, it is not a case like this also and as such, learned Appellate Authority ought to have examined all these details about the scope of Section 10, about the contents of show cause notice and the circumstances which have been relied upon while canceling the registration. In addition to this, learned Appellate Authority has failed to consider the final decisions of the High Court, which have not commented any adverse remedy against the petition and therefore the Appellate Authority has mechanically exercised the jurisdiction without proper application of mind and therefore, the conclusion arrived at is perverse to the record.

4.3. Learned advocate Mr. Paneri has further contended that a part from this, cancellation of registration cannot take place on the basis of the issue of non-filing of returns, because the said non-filing of return must have an element of willful defiance of the said provision and unless and until that is visible from the record, no jurisdiction to be exercised for cancellation of registration and learned advocate has submitted that a bare reading of the Appellate Authority's order is completely silent on all of these vital issues which are touching to the root of the controversy. It has further been contended that due to this drastic step cancellation of Trade Union's registration, several cases of workmen represented by the Union have reached standstill and gradually are getting dismissed for non-prosecution as well and as such, the interest of the workmen is also not taken care of by the authorities and only on the basis of circumstances, which are not permissible for cancellation of registration, an order came to be passed and unfortunately, the Appellate Authority has also ignored these circumstances and as such, learned advocate has

requested to set aside the impugned order in the interest of justice.

4.4. To substantiate these contentions, learned advocate Mr. Paneri has relied upon two decisions delivered by the High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Registrar of Trade Unions and Joint Labour Commissioner(H.Q.) Vs. Lake Palace Hotel Karya Karta Union and Ors., dated 12.9.1996 in D.B.C.S.A. No.389 of 1996 as well as the High Court of Madras in the case of Neyveli National Workers Union Vs. The Additional Registrar-II of Trade Unions, dated 4.12.1998 in C.M.A. No.846 of 1998, which are attached to the written submission compilation, and after referring to few observations contained in those decisions, a request is made to set aside the impugned order or in the alternative, a fresh look from the aforesaid context deserves at the instance of Appellate Authority at least and after referring to these judgments and raising the contentions, a request is made to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned orders.

5. As against this, the learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Bharat Vyas appearing on behalf of appropriate authority has filed affidavit-in-reply sworn by Deputy Labour Commissioner, office of the Labour Commissioner Gujarat State, Gandhinagar and has made an attempt to justify the cancellation and supported the order passed by the Appellate Forum. It appears from the bare reading of the reply attached to the petition compilation on page 263, that a contention is raised that since the representative of the petitioner Union has made an attempt to mislead the High Court in the proceedings of Special Civil Application No.19368 of 2015, as a consequent of it, show cause notice came to be issued on 9.6.2016. According to Mr. Vyas some 73 complaints have been filed by the Union, wherein three establishments were not in existence till the complaints have been filed and non-existence of such was a subject

of matter of the proceedings against the petitioner Union and as such, the activities of the Union are not in consonance with the object for which the Act is enacted and the registration has been given. It has been further been contended that after issuance of the show cause notice, adequate opportunity was given for inspection on 31.1.2017 at 3:00 p.m. for perusal of the papers and documents, but the representative of petitioner informed that he will come on next date to inspect the documents and thereafter did not remain present, and as such now, the petitioner cannot raise a ground for non-supply of material since it is the petitioner, who had avoided the inspection and the verification of documents. It has further been contended that full opportunity was given to the petitioner Union, but they have not availed the said opportunity which led ultimately the authority to pass an order of cancellation of registration. It has been contended that conduct of the petitioner Union is such before the Labour Court that a criminal complaint has also been filed against Mr. Subhash B. Chaudhary in one Recovery Application No.1989 of 1998, since an attempt was made to tamper with the record of the Labour Court and it was found by the Labour Court itself on 13.2.2020, when the order came to be passed, and has directed the In-charge Registrar of Labour Court, Ahmedabad to file written complaint before the Court having jurisdiction against the petitioner Union and his representative and that complaint of forgery has been filed before the competent Court under Sections 463, 464, 465 and 466 of the Indian Penal Code, which is registered as Criminal Case No.22819 of 2020 dated 28.2.2020 filed before 5th Addiction Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, wherein, a process to accuse order was passed and the next date of hearing was 4.9.2020. This has been pointed out by learned Assistant Government Pleader and he has vehemently contended that the authority has rightly canceled the registration of the petitioner

Union. Mr. Bharat Vyas has submitted that it is the petitioner Union's conduct which has led the cancellation of registration and therefore no fault can be found of the authority who has passed the order in detail and as such, has requested that the petition deserves to be dismissed and this is not a fit case in which extraordinary jurisdiction deserves to be exercised.

6. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material on record, following few circumstances are not possible to be unnoticed by the Court while coming to the ultimate conclusion in the present proceedings:-

(1) First of all, the petitioner Union undisputely is registered way back in September 1990 and over the period of time, according to the petitioner, there are as many as 989 individuals who are members of the petitioner Union and on several occasions, various authorities have been approached for espousing the cause of the workmen/ labourers. The Union which is already registered under the provisions of the Act is no-doubt subjected to compliance of the relevant provisions of the Act, but at the same time, the Statute has provided a provision for cancellation of the registration vide Section 10 of the Act, which reads as under:-

10. Cancellation of registration.-A certificate of registration of a Trade Union may be withdrawn or cancelled by the Registrar-

(a) on the application of the Trade Union to be verified in such manner as may be prescribed;

(b) 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 willfully 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;

(c) if the Registrar is satisfied that a registered Trade

Union of workmen ceases to have the requisite number of members:

Provided that not less than two months previous notice in writing specifying the ground on which it is proposed to withdraw or cancel the certificate shall be given by the Registrar to the Trade Union before the certificate is withdrawn or cancelled otherwise than on the application of the Trade Union.

A reading of Section 10 reflects that if the Registrar is satisfied that the certificate is obtained by fraud or mistake or the Union has ceased to exist, is not the circumstance here and further has willfully and after notice from the Registrar contravened any provision of the Act or allowed any rule to continue in force which is in consistent with any of the provision and as such, sub-clause (b) of Section 10 presupposes that there must be satisfaction of Registrar about certificate obtained by fraud or Union has willfully and after notice continued to contravened any of the provision. Now, this satisfaction appears to be completely missing from bare reading of the order in question, as it appears prima facie.

(2) What has been relied upon in the notice and alleged against the petitioner is that there is some mistake about designation of Mr. S.B. Chaudhary in the forms which have been filled in and in the High Court, an attempt is made to mislead by projecting said Mr. S.B. Chaudhary as Vice President, whereas in the other proceedings, as General Secretary and that has created a suspicion which has led the misleading of the Court and as such, it appears that the contents of the show cause notice are quite not in consonance with the provisions of the Act. Apart from that, the alleged violation of Rule is 22 is also made the subject matter of the show cause notice and further, certain complaints which have been filed are found to be a less genuine and as such, the show cause notice has indicated the element which does not satisfy the requirement of Section 10. Further, it appears that after issuance of the original notice dated

9.6.2016, there is no further notice given and as such, the element of willful defiance or contravention of the provision is also not possible to be assumed.

(3) From the reading of the original order, it appears that substantial reliance is based upon designation of Mr. Chaudhary and non-filing of the general statement under Section 28 of the Act. As against this, a detailed explanation which has been filed in respect of the said notice in the form of reply is that no such attempt is made. On the contrary, the petitioner Union has supplied all particulars.

(4) In addition thereto, it appears from the Appeal which has been filed, i.e. Appeal No.2 of 2017, the specific contentions have been raised that proper statements have been on annual basis right from 2006 onwards and further, in the High Court, there was no attempt made to mislead. Had it been so, the High Court would have passed some strictures while finally disposing of the petition, which is not there. A specific further contention has been raised with regard to non-supply of the material as well as inspection having not been properly given. This contention appears to have been brushed aside by no cogent reasons rather has not been properly dealt with at all by the Appellate Authority.

(5) With regard to filing of the form also, a defense is raised that proper statements have been filed but the authority appears to have not considered the same. On the contrary, the explanation was given that on the particular period, said Mr. S.B. Chaudhary was holding the post of General Secretary, whereas for a particular period, he was holding the post of the President and there was no attempt made of misleading the Court as pointed out by the petitioner by way of defense. So far as the genuineness of the

complaints is concerned, the Appellate Authority ought to have examined as to whether any proper report is submitted with regard to that and whether the same is supplied to the petitioner or not, same is not visible from the record. The only conclusion which is derived is that proper opportunity was given to defend and the said opportunity is not availed by the present petitioner but, the chronology of events ought to have been gone into by the Appellate Authority when such a drastic step is to be taken against the petitioner.

(6) No-doubt, a detailed order is passed running into 23 pages but, the basic requirement of consideration of the points is missing in conclusion part and as such, prima facie, it appears to this Court a re-look is required by the Appellate Authority on the aforesaid issues which are raised by way of the contentions by the petitioner.

(7) It further appears from the record that the proceedings before the High Court were mainly taken note of even by the Appellate Authority while exercising the jurisdiction. But, then, learned Appellate Authority appears to have not made further scrutiny as to whether in the ultimate outcome, any such steps are suggested or not.

(8) No-doubt, if the Union, which is registered, is not complying with the requirement of the law and if not observing any of the provisions or not, then steps which are permitted deserve to be taken but the manner and method which is provided ought to have been observed by the authority and it appears from the reading of the order of the Appellate Authority that, that issue has not been properly dealt with.

(9) The contentions which have been raised about issuance of the notice whether it specified the requirement of provisions meant for

cancellation of the registration or not, is not examined by the Appellate Authority. Further, it appears that the element of willful contravention is also not a part of the conclusion of the order of the Appellate Authority and regarding filing of returns under Section 28 of the Act, the conclusion is not in consonance with the relevant record, as prima facie found. On the contrary, the written submissions which have been made in that behalf is clearly suggesting that for violation of such issue, a specific remedy is provided under Section 31 of the Act for imposing fine upon the Union and as such, in substance, the Appellate Authority ought to have examined whether the original order has traveled beyond the scope of the show cause notice or the original order is satisfying the requirement of the provision meant for cancellation of registration. The Appellate Authority appears to have not assigned proper reasons on such issues and therefore, in considered opinion of this Court, this may be a circumstance for remanding the matter back for fresh consideration.

(10) Additionally, as pointed out by learned advocate for the petitioner, two decisions which have been relied upon that non-filing of returns cannot be a subject matter of cancellation of registration as well as there must be two notices while invoking the jurisdiction under Section 10 of the Act and therefore, the said observations which are made in para 9 of the decision dated 12.9.1996 in case of Registrar of Trade Unions and Joint Labour Commissioner (H.Q.) Vs. Lake Palace Hotel Karya Karta Union and Ors. (supra) and certain observations contained in para 20, 21 and 22 of the decision dated 4.12.1998 of Madras High Court in case of Neyveli National Workers Union (supra), this Court is also of the opinion that a fresh look to the issue deserves to be undertaken by th Appellate Authority. Hence, the matter requires to be remanded back for re-look by the Appellate Authority.

(11) Further, it appears that the explanation which has been given in respect of the notice which has been given also appears to have not been properly considered by the authority and further, not appreciated by the Appellate Authority as well. In addition to this, the stand which has been taken in the affidavit-in-reply is also a circumstance after the order which has been passed by the original authority and therefore, the said circumstance also will have to be examined by the Appellate Authority whether to be relied upon or not.

7. This conclusion is on account of the aforesaid circumstances which are prevailing on record. In addition thereto, one additional factor which has weighed with the Court is that this Union has been registered way back in 1990 and over the period of time, series of complaints have been filed at various forums, espousing the cause of workmen/ labourers and further, the grounds which are stated in the notice are further required to be looked into whether the same are sufficient for cancellation of registration or not since the cancellation has brought a serious repercussion not only in the petitioner but on the workmen who are being represented for their legitimate grievance.

8. A conjoint effect of the aforesaid circumstances is leading to a conclusion that proper application of mind deserves to be applied by the Appellate Authority and in the context of the provisions of the Statute, a fresh consideration be given to an issue of cancellation of registration.

9. Since this Court is of the opinion that the matter is required to be reconsidered by the Appellate Authority, this Court has refrained itself from expressing any opinion with regard to any of the contentions raised by the petitioner and without being influenced by

any of the circumstances, learned Appellate Authority is required to reconsider afresh strictly in accordance with law.

10. It appears to this Court that the contentions which have been raised before Appellate Authority have not been proper considered and the reasons assigned are not in context of each of the contentions and as such, to that extent, it appears that the order passed by the Appellate Authority suffers from vice of non- application of mind. As a result of this, the Court deems it proper to direct the Appellate Authority to consider the case on the basis of the said contentions after dealing with the same.

11. This opinion of the Court is well supported by the decisions delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Birwati Chaudhary and others Vs. State of Haryana and Others reported in (2018)9 SCC 458 as well as by this Court in the case of Mayurbhai Kantibhai Gohil Vs. State of Gujarat and Another reported in 2015(1) GLR 894. As a result of this, to that extent, the case is made out by the petitioner. Hence, this petition is disposed of with the following directions which would meet the ends of justice:-

(1) The impugned order dated 7.12.2018 passed in T.U.

Appeal No.2 of 2017 is hereby quashed and set aside with a consequential direction that learned Presiding Officer of the Industrial Court, Ahmedabad is directed to reconsider the appeal in the context of the contentions raised by the petitioner and in light of the evidence which is already available on record and shall pass a fresh reasoned order strictly in accordance with law.

(2) It is needless to say that such exercise of re-

consideration shall be undertaken by giving due

opportunity to the petitioner and it is further clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merit with regard to any of the contentions raised by the petitioner and it is independently left it open for learned Presiding Officer to pass fresh order in accordance with law on the basis of the material on record and on the basis of the submissions which may be made by the petitioner.

(3) Since the large number of complaints are sought to be affected and considerable time has elapsed, it is desirable that such exercise be undertaken as early as possible by learned Presiding Officer, preferably within a period of SIX MONTHS from the date of receipt of writ of this Court.

12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the petition stands DISPOSED OF.

Sd/-

(ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J) OMKAR