Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Koyla Shramik Sabha (a registered trade union) and its President Umashankar Gupteshwar Prasad Singh, challenged the consent certificate dated 27.08.2015 issued by the Deputy Registrar of Trade Unions, Nagpur (respondent no.1). The dispute arose when respondent nos. 2 and 3 (Kisan Mangal Ghubde and Dashrath Janbaji Khandare) applied to the Registrar under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, claiming that they were the duly elected office bearers and committee members as per Annexure A. The petitioners filed a reply asserting that petitioner no.2 was the elected President. On 23.07.2015, after holding an enquiry under Section 28(1-A) of the Act, the Registrar issued a consent certificate referring the dispute to the Industrial Court. However, on 27.08.2015, the Registrar issued a corrected consent certificate without any fresh enquiry, merely correcting the earlier certificate. The petitioners argued that the corrected certificate was issued without jurisdiction and without following the statutory procedure. The court examined the provisions of Section 28(1-A) of the Trade Unions Act, 1926, which requires the Registrar to hold an enquiry and, if a dispute exists, refer it to the Industrial Court. The court found that the Registrar had already conducted an enquiry and referred the dispute to the Industrial Court on 23.07.2015. The subsequent corrected certificate dated 27.08.2015 was issued without any enquiry and without any basis, effectively nullifying the earlier reference. The court held that the Registrar had no power to issue a corrected certificate without a fresh enquiry, and the proper course was to allow the Industrial Court to decide the dispute. Accordingly, the court quashed the consent certificate dated 27.08.2015 and directed the Industrial Court to proceed with the reference made on 23.07.2015.
Headnote
A) Trade Unions Act - Consent Certificate - Section 28(1-A) - Enquiry Requirement - The Deputy Registrar of Trade Unions issued a consent certificate on 23.07.2015 after holding an enquiry under Section 28(1-A) of the Trade Unions Act, 1926, referring the dispute to the Industrial Court. However, on 27.08.2015, a corrected consent certificate was issued without any fresh enquiry, merely correcting the earlier certificate. Held that the corrected certificate was issued without jurisdiction as no enquiry was conducted before its issuance, and the earlier certificate had already referred the dispute to the Industrial Court. (Paras 2-6) B) Trade Unions Act - Dispute Resolution - Section 28(1-A) - Role of Industrial Court - The proper course for the Registrar was to refer the dispute regarding office bearers to the Industrial Court under Section 28(1-A) of the Trade Unions Act, 1926, rather than issuing a corrected consent certificate. Held that the Industrial Court is the appropriate forum to adjudicate the dispute between rival groups claiming to be office bearers. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Deputy Registrar of Trade Unions could issue a corrected consent certificate without conducting a proper enquiry under Section 28(1-A) of the Trade Unions Act, 1926, and whether the earlier consent certificate dated 23.07.2015 was validly issued.
Final Decision
The court quashed the consent certificate dated 27.08.2015 and directed the Industrial Court to proceed with the reference made on 23.07.2015.
Law Points
- Consent certificate under Section 28(1-A) of Trade Unions Act
- 1926 requires proper enquiry
- Registrar cannot issue corrected certificate without enquiry
- Dispute regarding office bearers must be resolved by Industrial Court
