Conducting of inquiry

Judge in Chambers of High Court did not apply his mind as to maintainability of company petition on the touchstone of Art. 181 of Limitation Act, 1908

Division Bench of High Court declined to decide such question as deciding the same without giving an opportunity to parties to address such question before Judge in Chambers of High Court and recording of evidence would be unfair

Parties intended to agitate maintainability of company petition on the touchstone of Art. 181 of Limitation Act, 1908, before Judge in Chambers of High Court and if required evidence would be recorded

Division Bench of High Court expected that finding would be recorded on point of limitation in addition to other intricate questions as were investigated in terms of judgment under appeal

Appeal was disposed of accordingly.

Contention of petitioner was that Registrar of Trade Unions had not complied with the directions of High Court passed in an earlier petition

Registrar of Trade Unions had jurisdiction and authority to deal with the issue of registration of a trade union

Petitioner could challenge such proceedings but only by establishing prima facie departure of required procedure

Dispute with regard to factual determination or determination by some appellate authority could not be agitated through constitutional petition

Petitioner had failed to make out a case by establishing that Authority while passing impugned order had departed from any mandatory requirement of law

Impugned order had been passed within four corners of instructions/directions issued in the earlier constitutional petition

Registrar of Trade Unions had not travelled from his jurisdiction

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.