The High Court · 2025

7. Mr. Ch. Dharmaiah, S/o. Lakshmi Narasaiah, Aged about 50 years, Rl/o. Siddipet, Siddipet District. B. Mr. Maripalli Sailu, S/o. Narsaiah, Aged about 52 years, R/o. Siddipet,

9. Mr. Midde Satyanarayana, S/o. Rajaiah, Aged about 50 years, R/o. Siddipet,

10.Mr. Balla Rajesham, S/o. Balaiah, Aged about 47 years, R/o. Naraynapeta. 11. Mr. Lagisetty Laxminarayana, S/o. Bhumaiah, Aged about 65 years, Rl/o. Siddipet, Siddipet District.

12.Mr. Usakoyala Narsimhulu, S/o. Arjun, Aged about 41 yeas, Fl/o. Duddeda,

13. Mr. Adepu Balakishan, S/o. Chandraiah, Aged about 46 years, R/o. Siddipet,

14. Mr. Maripally Balakishan, S/o. Sailu, Aged about 34 years, R/o. Siddipet, '15. Mr. Suram Ravi, S/o. Sudarshan, Aged about 38 years, Rl/o. Bakri Chepyala, Siddipet, Siddipet District.

16. Mr. Chikoti Venkateshwar, S/o. Siddelingam, Aged about 60 years, Rl/o. Siddipet, Siddipet District.

17.Mr. Yadelli N4allesham, s/o. Bhuchaiah, Aged about 51 years, RVo. Siddipet, Siddipet District. (RR 4 to 17 are implead wP tvP.i\o.4822612016 ed as per Court Order dt: 0110212017 in ) RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records from the Respondents and issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the Proceedings issued by the issued by the 3rd respondent in Letter No. 41122912014, dated 03.09.2016 received on 22.09.2016 cancelling the registration of the Trade .Union vide Registration No. AlTUl17l2O1O, dated 15.02.2010 in pursuance oT the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent in Letter No. A/67,512015, dated 13.06.2016 as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, contrary to law, arbitrary, irr-ational, without any application of mind, biased, not bonafide, in violation of prinr;iples of natural justice and the same is without jurisdiction, and violative of Artic:les 14 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and by granting all consequential be'nefits. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 40932 OF 2016) Petition urder Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order passed by the 3rd respondent in Proceedings No. A112292014, dated 03.09.2016 received on 22.09.2016, othenrvise the [\Iembers of the Petitioner Union vuould suffer serious hardship and irreparable loss. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 3905 OF 2017) Petition under Section'151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to extend the stay orCer granted in W.P.M.P.NO. 40932 of 2016 in W.P.NO. 33101 of 201 6, dated 28-Og-201 6. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017ftIWMP. NO:487 OF 2017) Between: District. Siddipet District. Siddipet District. Siddipet District.

1. tt/r. Singi Reddy lla Reddy, S/o. Raji Reddy, aged about 55 years, R/o. H.No.2-190/1, Prashanth Nagar, Siddipet, Siddipet District.

2. tVlr. Thalla Raju, S/o. Shankaraiah, Aged about 40 years, Siddipet, Siddipet

3. [Vr. Devasani Dayanand, S/o. Yadaiah, Aged about 40 years, R/o. Siddipet,

4. tt/r. Ch. Dharmaiah, S/o. Lakshmi Narasaiah, Aged about 50 years, R/o. Siddipet, Siddipet District.

5. Mr. Maripalli Sailu, S/o. Narsaiah, Aged about 52 years, R/o. Siddipet,

6. Mr. Midde Satyanarayana, S/o. Rajaiah, Aged about 50 years, R/o. Siddipet,

7. tt/r. Balla Rajesham, S/o. Balaiah, Aged about 47 years, R/o. Naraynapeta. 8. [t/r. Lagisetty Laxminarayana, S/o. Bhumaiah, Aged about 65 years, R/o.

9. IVr. Usakoyala Narsimhulu, S/o. Arjun, Aged about 41 years, R/o. Duddeda, Siddipet, Siddipet District. Siddipet District.

10. tMr. Adepu Balakishan, S/o. Chandraiah, Aged about 46 years, R/o. Siddipet, Siddipet District.

11. tMr. Maripally Balakishan, S/o. Sailu, Aged about 34 years, R/o. Siddipet, Siddipet District.

12.Mr. Suram Ravi, S/o. Sudarshan, Aged about 38 years, R/o. Bakri Chepyala, Siddipet, Siddipet District.

13. Mr. Chikoti Venkateshwar, S/o. Siddelingam, Aged about 60 years, R/o.

14.Mr. Yadelli Mallesham, S/o. Bhuchaiah, Aged about 51 years, Fl/o. Siddipet, Siddipet, Siddipet District. siddipet District' ..pETraoNERS/ PROPOSED RESPONDENT Nos.4 TO 17 AND

1. Telangana All Beedi Karmika Sangham, (Regn. No. A/TU/1712010)_Rep. by its Geheral Secretary, T. Anil Kumar Alias Laminarayana Rl/o. 3-22, Dubbaka, Medak District. ... RESPON DENT/PETITIONER

2. The Principal Secretary, Government of Telangana, Department of labour and Employment Secretariat, Hyderabad.

3. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour (FAC), T. Anjaiah Karmika Bhavan RTC X Roads, Hyderabad.

4. The Deputy Registrar of Trade Union &, Deputy Commissioner of Labour Government of Telangana Sangareddy, Medak District. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Petition underSection 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased vacate the interim order dated 2810912016 granted by this Hon'ble Court in WPMP No. 40932 oI 2016 in WP No. 33101 of 2016. Counsetfor tl"re Petitioner: SRI A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 3: GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 TO 17: SRI/Ms./Mrs. MOGILI ANAVENI The Court matle tlre following: ORDER 7 wp_33101_2016 NBK, J 0 THE HON' BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.33l0l of 2016 ORDER: 'fhe case of the petitioner, briefly stated as per the writ affidavit, is that the petitioner is a Trade Union registered under the 'frade Unions Act, 1926, through Registration No. AlTUll7l20l0 dated 15.02.2010. The 3'd respondent -Deputy Registrar vide the impugned Order dated 03.09.2016 cancelled the registration based on a direction from the 2nd respondent- Deputy Commissioner of Labour vide Letter No. N675/2015, dated 13.06.2016. The petitioner's main claim is that this cancellation is an act done out of revenge, and carried out without issuance of mandatory 60 days' prior notice as per [aw, thereby it is violation of principles of naturaljustice. lt is contended that the impugned cancellation is an act of vengeance as the ,,petitioner-union stood up'against IWs. Thakur Savedekar & Company Ltd., tbr the cause of realisation of unpaid provident fund and gratuity of over 100 uneducated beedi workers. l.l [t is stated that the actual events began when the petitioner made a complaint against the Management, thereby the Assistant Commissioner of Labour sent a report to the Joint Commissioner on

29.04.2013. The Joint Commissioner called for a meeting vide letter dated

02.05.2013 but it was ignored by the management. The Joint Commissioner vide Memo No. Bll244l2T14 dated 17.lO.2Ol4 found discrepancies in the records maintained by the Management, and directed the 2nd respondent to take action under Labour laws. The 2nd respondent was hand in glove with the Management of IWs Tahkur Savedekar & Company Limited., and failed to act as per law, and therefore the petitioner-union raised the issue with the \al 2 wp_33101_2015 NBK, J District Collector, Medak, on 03.08.2015. The District Collector questioned the 3rd ret;pondent about the reasons for not acting as per law against the management. As a consequence of this complaint, the 3rd respondent first tried to cancel the petitioner-union's registration by an order dated 29.08.201: without issuing notice; and also challenged this through Writ Petition No. 30621 of 2015. This Court by order dated 23.09.2015 directed the 2nd respondent to hold a full-fledged enquiry. The 2nd respondent gave a show-cause notice, and the petitioner gave explanation with l3 supporting documents. However, the 2nd respondent gave the suggestion to cancel the registration on 13.06.2016 without a fair enquiry, on the strength of proof collected be:hind the back of petitioner, including an unsigned sale deed.

1.2 The petitioner's main claims are that the respondents acted unfairly ancl with vengeance. They say the 2nd respondent, by colluding with the marlagement, failed to follow the Joint Commissioner's order dated 17.10.2014, and carried out a fake enquiry, and used false evidence. They the 3rd respondent began the cancellation out of vengeance in retaliation o "petitioner's complaint to the District Collector on 03.08.2015, "say and despite the order of this court for a full enquiry, the 3d respondent chose to ignore it and give the final cancellation. It is stated that the entire action is based on a false complaint from a group, called "Medak ZillaThekedarula Sangham," r,r,hich does not exist and which is not a registered trade union.

1.3 tt is further stated that the respondents allege that the petitioner union got its registration illegally, by claiming that the union was not located at the address it gave in its registration papers. These claims were said to be made by the unregistered "Medak zina Thekedarula Sangham,, and the management. fhe petitioner strongly denies these claims, saying the 3 wp_33 101_2016 NBK, J registration was obtained by "legal means," and that it gave yearly reports and payment slips to show its real work; and therefore the impugned cancellation of registration is illegal and arbitrary.

2. A counter affidavit is filed by the 3'd respondent-Deputy Commissioner of Labour and Deputy Registrar of Trade Unions for Sangareddy, contending that the impugned cancellation order dated 03.09.20 16, cancel the Registration No. A/TU/ 17l2}l 0 dated 15.O2.2Ol 0 of the petitioner-Union was legal and proper action taken as per the direction of this Court, by conducting a detailed enquiry, and having found serious mistakes and false actions in the petitioner-union's original application.

2.1 It is contended that the petitioner earlier filed W.P. No.30621 of 2015 against a Show Cause notice, and this Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the 2nd respondent to carry out a detailed enquiry, and in compliance of the order, the 2nd respondent conducted detailed enquiry and checked many documents, including the original office file No. A/26012010, papers, the explanation dated 08.12.2015 submitted by the petitioner's General Secretary (T. AnilKumar) to the Show Cause notice of 16.05.2015, and also the papers from the "Medak Zilla Tekedarla Sangham," and other documents from related sources; and the findings that emerged from this enquiry was the main reason for the cancellation. The enquiry showed that the original registration certificate was given on 15.02.2010 without checking the facts, which was a mistake. It was found thatthe addresses of the seven signatory members in Form 'A' did not match the addresses on theirjob letters, and importantly, the seventh signatory was not a Beedi worker in Medak District as required by the union's own rules; and this meant there were only six valid members, which is one shoft of the \ \ 4 wp_33101_2015 NBK, J legal minjmum of seven members, needed for registration, making the application clearlv faulty. Also, the union did not give any proof, like a rent agreement, to show that its office was really at H.No: 3-167, Prashanth Nagar, Sictdipet. It is also contended that the verification checl</enquiry conducted by the Assistant Labour Otficer revealed that there was no union office ever existed at that place; and the petitioner committed a wrongfulact by faking a signature and creating a lalse certificate said to be from the Post Master of Sliddipet to wrongly show the union's address.

2.2 It is contended that because of these serious findings, the 2nd respondent gave his view that the cancellation was correct, but said the proper offi<:er to do it was the Deputy Commissioner for Medak District, and not Rangareddy District. So, the case was passed on, and the 3rd respondent, acting on orders from the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Rangareddy zone (Memo No. C/84612016 dated 04.08.2016), and using his powers uncler Section l0 of the 'rrade Unions Act, 1926, gave the cancellation order. The 3'd respondent denies the petitioner's claim of bias and having no right to act, saying that the enquiry was done by the 2nd respondent in compliance of the orders of this Court on23.09.2015, and the 3'd respondeet's role was only to act on the report.

3. The re:spondents 4 to 17 (impleaded vide wpMp No.48226 of 2016 dated 01.02.','-Ol7) frled counter affidavit contending that the writ petition is not maintainable. and the petitioner-union has straightaway approached this Court withor"Lt availing the appeal provision under Section 11 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926; and further the petitioner did not include necessary parties i.e., Ivledak zilla Tekedarula Sangam, whose complaint was the genesis of this case. [t is contended that the order dated 03.09.2016 was 5 wp_33101_2015 N8K, J issued after a full-fledged enquiry wherein the illegality while obtaining the registration of petitioner-union with false claims was found.

3.1 [t is contended that under the name of Zilla Thekedarula Sangam, a formal complaint was given to the 3'd respondent on 02.08.2014, wherein it is complained that the petitioner union got its registration by hiding facts and cheating, and it was specifically complained that seven people listed in Forrn-A did not live in Prashant Nagar, Siddipet, did not work in any [oca[ beedicompany, and gave no proof of being beediworkers. It is contended that this complaint was the only reason the 3rd respondent began the process to cancel the registration, which first led to an order on

29.08.2015. lt is contended that though this Court in W.P.No.3062l of 2015 dated 23.09.2015 directed the enquiry officer must inform the complainants, the petitioner-union purposely left these respondents out of the current writ petition. It is contended that the final cancellation order of 03.09.2016 was based only on the detailed enquiry report of the 2nd respondent (Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Ranga Reddy, dated 02.06.2016, in compliance of the directions of this Court in W.P.No.3062l of 2015.

3.2 [t is contended that Medak ZillaThekedarula Sangam is a real and existing entity though an unregistered group, and therefore it is false on the part of petitioner-union to state that Medak ZillaThekedarula Sangam is not rea[. It is contended that the petitioner-union appeared in person on

15.10.2015 at 3.00 PM, and claimed that wrong evidence was used by the 2nd respondent in the enquiry process. It is contended that the Assistant Labour Officer's check was a valid official step, not a court case needing full witness checks, and that it showed cheating-specifically that the \ I 6 wp_33101_2016 NBK, J petitioner faked a certificate from the Post Master of Siddipet dated 01.12.201:i to wrongly show the union's address.

4. Heaid Mr. .A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, leamed counsel for the petitioner- union; and the leamed Government Pleader tor Labour. Perused the record.

5. At ttre outset, it may be noted that the issue is whether the cancellation of the petitioner's trade union registration by the 3rd respondent on 03.09.2016 was legal and valid in the eyes of law. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that it was registered since 15.02.2010, and it stood up for the cause of payment of provident fund amounts to the Beedi workers and nursing grudge against the petitioner, the cancetlation of registration was done by the respondent authorities in collusion with the managemerrt of the company.

6. It is io be noted that the specific contention of the petitioner that mandatory notice allowing 60 days period for making appropriate representation/reply, as contemplated under Section 10(b) of the Trade Unions Act, 1926, was never given before the cancellation. This rute is not optional but must be followed, and not doing so is nothing but undermining the legal riglrt of the petitioner; and the later actions like a show-cause notice and enquiry cannot be a substitute for non-compliance of mandatory procedure, and cannot fix the basic mistake of not giving the required notice. Further, the record reveals the petitioner only got the cancellation order dated 03.09.:2016 on 22.09.2016, after it was already passed proving they were not givt:n a fair chance to reply.

7. Further:, this courr, by order dated 23.09.2015 in w.p.No.3 062l of ZQts directed the Deputy commissioner of Labour, Ranga Reddy, to decide ba, /./ 7 wp_33101_2015 NBK, J the issue, whereas it was represented by the learned Assistant Government Pleader on28.09.2016 in WPMP No.40932 of 2016 in this writ petition, that the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner is not the competent authority and therefore the 3'd respondent passed the impugned order of cancellation. This Couft, considering the respective submissions, granted interim suspension of the impugned order of cancellation, with an observation that in case of jurisdictional issue, the authorities ought to have brought to the notice of the Court to avoid further illegality. The Docket Order dated 28.09.2016 in WP No.40932 of 2016 reads as follows: This Court already by order dated 23.09.2O15 in WP.No-30621 of 2015 directed the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Ranga Reddy to decide the issue. Mr. A.K- Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for petitioner, contends that the Deputy Registnr of Trade lJnion and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Govemment of Telangana, Sangareddy, Medak District, is not the autlrcrity directed by this Court to decide on the cancellation of registration of petitioner trade union. I[e Assistan t Govern m ent Pleader submits that the second respondent is not the competent authority, therefore, the third respondent has passed the order. I have perused the order dated 23.09.2015 and the impugned order dated 03.09.2016. lf at all there is any jurisdictional issue, to avoid further illegality in the matter, appropriate clarification ought to have been taken by respondenb from this CourL After perusing the communication dated 03.09.2016, even on meri6, I am satrsfie4 prima facie case is made out and balance of convenience is with petitioner. Hence, there shall be interim suspension of proceedings bearing Lr. No.N1229/2914 dated 03.09.2016 for a period of five (5) w*ks from today. List on 26.10.2016." \ The interim order was thereafter extended until further orders on

8. 0t.02.2017. .I 8 wp_33101_2016 NBK, J

9. At r.his juncture, it is relevant to refer to Section 10 of Trade Unions Act, 1926 reads as follows: "10. ()ancellation of registration. - A cer:ificate 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 preso'ibed; (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 contin're 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; (c) if the Registrar is satisfied that a registered Trade Union of workmen ceases to have the requisite number of members: 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 br> given by the Registrar to the Trade Union before the certificate is withdrarun or cancelled otherwise ttan on the application of the Trade union.,'

10. At thir; juncture, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon, ble Privy Counc:l in Nazir Ahmad v. King-Emperorr (privy Council, 1936), which was referred and upheld in various judgments by the Hon, ble Supreme Corrrt (example State of Uttar pradesh vs. Singhara Singh2) wherein it wes held as follows: "where ,a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all, and that other methods of perform:rnce are necessarily forbidden.,' 1 AtR 1936 pc 253 'zAiE1964 sc 3s8 9 wp_33101_2O16 NBK, J

11. The proviso to Section l0(c) of the Trade Unions Act, 1926, stipulating issuance of two months prior notice in writing detailing the reasons for cancellation of registration so as to enable the party to come forth with an explanation, if any, is not scrupulously followed in this case. This Couft, after considering the submissions made by both the parties, vide interim order dated 28.09.2016 (extracted at paraT above) observed that the impugned order was passed by a different authority and not the one directed by Xhis pourt, and that even on merits, there is prima facie case and balance .of convenience in favour of the petitioner. [n that view of the rlatter, the writ petition deserves to be ailowed.

11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shalt stand closed. ThatRuleNisihasbeenmadeabsoluteasabove. WitNESS THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ALOK ARADHE' ON this THURSDAY, THE TTTTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE /TRUE COPY// L. VIJAYA LAXMI ANT SECTION OFFICER To

1. 2

3. 4 5. 6. Hyderabad. [OUTI

7. Two CD CoPies PSK. i ,i t I ,l ,1 ;i II i i I I I I I \ I i i I ! i i I I i i ! I I I i I I i I I I i I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I i HIGH CC)URT DATED:tl9/0 112025 \ \ ORDER WP.No.33r101 of 2016 O r1 t-61 Bt: /IJIh * * ALLOWINIG THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS s;