Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/1462/2017 of Everest Industries Mazdoor Union AND ANOTHER Vs State Of Uttarakhand AND ANOTHER on 28 December 2017
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1462 of 2017 Everest Industries Mazdoor Union & another … Petitioners Vs State of Uttarakhand & another … Respondents Mr. T.A. Khan, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Vinay Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioners.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1462 of 2017
Everest Industries Mazdoor Union & another … Petitioners
Vs
State of Uttarakhand & another … Respondents Mr. T.A. Khan, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Vinay Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. S.R. Joshi, Standing Counsel, present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Hon’ble Manoj K. Tiwari, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. Petitioner No. 1 is an association of workers serving in M/s Everest Industries Ltd., Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar. Petitioner No. 2 is an office bearer of the said association. Petitioner No. 1 had made an application, under Trade Union Act, to the Registrar and the Registrar, Trade Union vide order dated 24.05.2017 has refused to register petitioner No. 1 as a Trade Union on account of certain shortcomings in his application, which have been pointed out in the said order.
3. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that Section 7(1) of the Trade Union Act provides that in case of any deficiency or shortcoming found in the application for registration, the Registrar can call upon the applicant for further information. He further submits that shortcomings pointed out by the Registrar in his order dated 24.05.2017 are trivial in nature and there is nothing to indicate that the application submitted by petitioner No. 1 was not in accordance with provision of Section 5 of the Trade Union Act.
4. Counter affidavit is absolutely silent as to whether Registrar has given an opportunity to the petitioner to supply information/documents, which according to him were necessary for taking decision on the application.
5. In such view of the matter, I am of the opinion that ends of justice would be served, if order impugned is set aside and the Registrar is directed to give an opportunity to the petitioner to remove the defect(s)/supply requisite information/document(s) within specific time, so that the Registrar may re-consider petitioner’s application in accordance with law.
6. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 24.05.2017 is hereby set aside. The writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to supply requisite information/documents to the Registrar, Trade Union within two weeks from today. The Registrar may call upon the petitioner to supply other information/document(s), as deemed necessary, within three weeks and petitioner shall supply such information/document(s) within two weeks thereafter. The Registrar, Trade Union shall re-consider petitioner’s application and pass appropriate order, in accordance with law, within four weeks thereafter.
(Manoj K. Tiwari, J.)