P (PLP)

The Registrar sent letter to the General Secretary of the Union, dated the 22nd September 1959. It would be useful for the disposal of this matter to reproduce it. It runs as under :‑ "Sub : Annual return for 1958‑

59. Dear Sir, In continuation of this office Reg. A. D. letter of even number, dated 20‑7‑59 on the above subject you are further informed that the registration of your Union has been cancelled with effect from 21‑9-59 for non‑submission of annual return for the year 1958‑59 in accordance with the provision provisions of section 28 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926. Yours faithfully, (Sd.) (Illegible), Registrar of Trade Unions." The appellant thereafter, after having received the cancellation order reproduced above submitted its return on the 24th September, 1959. It may, however, be stated that no action has been taken by the Registrar on this fresh submission of the return by the Union.

2. The appellant preferred an appeal before the District Judge under sub‑clause (b) of section 11 of the Act. The appeal has been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mr. Qareshi. The appellants have now filed an appeal in this Court which is permissible under sub‑clause (4) of section II of the Act.

3. Mr. Raza Kazim, the learned Advocate for the appellant, has raised two‑fold contentions before me namely (1) that sub‑. clause (b) of section 10 of the Act provides that two months' previous notice should be given in writing specifying the ground on which it is proposed to cancel the registration before the same is cancelled ; and (2) that the order dated the 20th July 1959 in effect debarred the Union from submitting another return which the Union could do upto 31st of July 1959. Both the contentions of Mr. Raza Kazim have force and I propose to dispose of these contentions separately.

4. Section 10 of the Act runs as under :‑ "

10. A certificate of registration of a Trade Union may be withdrawn or cancelled by the Registrar‑ (a) on the application of the Trade Union to be verified in such manner as may be prescribed, or (b) If the Registrar is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 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provision of this Act or allowed any rule to continue in force which is inconsistent with any such provision, or has rescinded any rule providing for any matter provision for which is required by section 6 ; Provided that not less than two months' previous notice in writing specifying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 with drawn or cancelled otherwise than on the application of the Trade Union. Sub‑clause (b) of section 10 reproduced above contemplates two notices. The first notice is to be given prior to the con travention of any of the provisions of the Act. I may emphasise the relevant portion of sub‑clause (b) of section 10 in this connection. A certificate of registration of a Trade Union may be cancelled by the Registrar if the Trade Union has wilfully and after notice from the Registrar contravened any provision of the Act. The wilful contravention contemplated under section 10 (b) of the Act is after notice from the Registrar. Mr. Mirza, the learned Advocate for the Registrar, relied upon the letter of 20th July 1959, for the compliance of the requisite notice. I have already reproduced the relevant portion of the latter, dated the 20th July 1959. It does not call upon the appellant to do anything. On the other hand, this letter after rejecting the return calls upon the appellant to show cause why the registration of the Union be not cancelled under section 10 (b) of the Act. This notice in my view of section 10 does nit comply with its requirements. It cannot be said that the appellant had wilfully and after notice from the Registrar contravened any provision of the Act. The appellant was found to have already contravened the provision of the Act. The appellant was not called upon by the Registrar to do anything. The operative portion of the letter, dated the 20th July 1959 is penal in its nature. It cannot be read liberally so as to imply that, after the annual return was rejected, the appellant was called upon to submit a fresh return. Furthermore, even if I were to take that the notice dated the 20th of July 1960 is a. notice prior to the wilful con travention of the provision of the Act, the question is whether the requirement of the proviso to section 10 has been complied with. Mr. Akhtar Mirza, the learned Advocate for the respondent has failed to point out any other notice except the one which I have already reproduced dated the 20th July 1959. Mr. Mirza contended that the notice of 20th July 1959 fulfils the require ment of section 10 (b) of the Act. The certificate relates to the notice which is to be given before a Trade Union were to wilfully contravene any provision of this Act. I have not doubt in my mind that section 10 (b) requires two notices independent of each other. The one is prior to the wilful contravention of any provision of the Act and the other is after the provision has been contravened. The proviso con templates for an opportunity to be given to the Trade Union A to show cause why its certificate be not cancelled. I would for these reasons, hold that the Registrar had not complied with the mandatory provision of section 10 (b) of the Act before cancelling the registration of the appellant.

5. The Registrar by his order, dated the 20th July 1959 refused to accept the return and called upon the Trade Union to explain within two months from the date of his letter as to why the registration of the Union be not cancelled under section 10 (b) for the contravention of the provision of the Act It is conceded by Mr. Mirza that the contravention referred to in the letter is non‑submission of return as required by section 28 of the Act. It is an admitted position that the appellant could file a return upto 31st July 1959. The return was rejected on the 20th of July 1959. The ‑appellant Trade Union had some days left to file a fresh return. The Act does not lay down that the appellant having once submitted its; e return could not file another return after it was found that it was incorrect or incomplete. Mr. Mirza has not shown any rule to this effect. Mr. Mirza however contended that the Trade Union having once submitted its return could not file another return. I do not think that this contention can be accepted without these being any specific mention in the Act or in the rule. The Registrar impliedly debarred the appellant from filing a fresh return by calling upon it to furnish its explanation why its registration be not cancelled. This the Registrar could not do under the law as the time for filing return had not expired.

6. For the reasons given above I allow the appeal with costs. The order of the Registrar, dated the 22nd of September, 1959 is quashed. K. B. A. Appeal accepted.