[2009] 8 S.C.R. 127
INDO COURT CHOONDNAM, EMPLOYEES
A
UNION &ANR.
V.
REGISTRAR (BOMBAY INDUSTRIAL RELATION ACT) &
ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 7244 of 2003)
B
MAY 05, 2009
),
[MARKANDEY KAT JU AND H.L. DATIU, JJ.]
Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1943 - ss. 13 and 20 c
- Appeal filed by one employees' Union -
Challenging
registration of another employees' Union - Industrial court
canceling registration of tatter and directing registration of the
former - Held: Industrial court in an appeal uls.20 could not
have directed registration to the Union which had not applied
D
for registration uls. 13 - Part of the order granting registration
set aside.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
7244 of 2003.
E
From the Judgment & Order dated 03.12.2002 of the High
Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in LP.A. No. 1114 of 2002.
Ramesh Singh, AT. Patra and Bina Gupta (for Mis. O.P.
Khaitan & Co.) for the Appellants.
F
Hemantika Wahi, Pinky, K. Enatoli Serna, Somanath
Padhan and .\.P. Mohanty for the Respondents.
The following order of the Court was delivered :
G
ORDER
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order
127
H
128
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 8 S.C.R.
A dated 03.12.2002 of a Division Bench of the High Court of
Gujarat at Ahmedabad. The facts in detail have been
mentioned in the impugned judgment and hence we need not
repeat the same here.
B
3.The short question in this appeal is whether in an appeal
under Section 20 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946
(hereinafter for short "the Act") while canceling the registration
of the appellant-Employees Union the Industrial Court could
direct registration of respondent No. 2 union.
C
4. Under Section 13 of the Act, if any union wants
registration, it has to make an application to the Registrar.
Hence, in our opinion, registration to a Union-A cannot be
granted in an appeal before the Industrial Court, where the
question is about validity of the registration of Union-B. The
D union seeking registration must make its own application.
E
F
5. Learned counsel for the respondent has referred to
Section 20(3) of the Act, which reads as under :-
"20. Appeal to Industrial Court from order of Registrar :-
(1)
xxxxxxxxxxx
(2)
xx x xx x xxx xx
(3) The Industrial Court in appeal may confirm, modify or
rescind any order passed by the Registrar and may pass
such consequential orders as it may deem fit. A copy of
the orders passed by the Industrial Court shall be sent to
the Registrar."
G
6. In our opinion, the aforesaid provision has no
application to the present case. An order granting registration
to a union which has not filed an application under Section 13
of the Act, but which has filed an appeal under Section 20(3)
challenging the registration granted to another union cannot be
H passed under the said provision. By the said provision, the
•
INDO COURT CHOONDNAM, EMPLY. UNION v.
129
REGISTRAR (BOMBAY INDUSTRIAL RELATION ACT)
order passed by the Registrar can only be confirmed, modified
A
or rescinded by the Industrial Court, and such consequential
orders may be passed as may be deemed fit by the Industrial
Court. In our view the provision cannot be interpreted to mean
that while the Industrial Court could have cancelled the
registration of the appellant-employees union, it could by the
B
same order direct registration of another employees union.
7. We are informed that the factory to which the appellant-
employees union was attached has since been closed.
8. In the above facts and circumstances, we set aside that
C
part of the impugned order dated 03.12.2002 whereby the
respondent No. 2 union has been granted registration.
9. Appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. No order
as to costs.
o
K.K.T. .
Appeal disposed of.
Lex