Trade union registration cancellation requires the correct statutory basis, disclosure of relied-on material, and a fair hearing.

A trade union's registration cannot be cancelled under Section 10(b) of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 on the basis of an alleged post-registration membership shortfall, because falling below the statutory minimum is not the same as ceasing to exist and the notice must disclose the true jurisdictional basis for action. The cancellation also failed for breach of natural justice: material gathered behind the union's back was not furnished for rebuttal, and reasons later raised in the counter-affidavit could not cure the defective notice or order. The writ petition remained maintainable despite the appellate remedy, and the employer had no independent right to be heard in the cancellation proceedings. The cancellation was set aside, with liberty to proceed according to law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether cancellation of registration could be sustained under Section 10(b) or Section 10(c) of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 on the basis of alleged fraud, cessation of existence, or alleged fall in membership below the statutory minimum; (ii) Whether the cancellation order was vitiated for breach of natural justice and for relying on material not furnished to the Union; (iii) Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the alternative remedy of appeal under Section 11 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and whether the employer was entitled to be heard in the cancellation proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether cancellation of registration could be sustained under Section 10(b) or Section 10(c) of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 on the basis of alleged fraud, cessation of existence, or alleged fall in membership below the statutory minimum.

Analysis: Section 10(b) applies where registration was obtained by fraud or mistake, or where the union has ceased to exist. Section 10(c) applies where a registered trade union ceases to have the requisite membership after registration. The Court held that falling below the statutory minimum is not the same as ceasing to exist, and that the Registrar's notice was directed only to the alleged shortfall in membership under Section 9A, which corresponded to Section 10(c), not Section 10(b). The impugned order, however, was ultimately made under Section 10(b) without the required jurisdictional facts being stated in the notice or established in the order. The Registrar also failed to verify whether the alleged members had never joined the union, had withdrawn before registration, or had joined later, and did not assess the post-registration membership position in the manner required for Section 10(c).

Conclusion: Cancellation could not be sustained under Section 10(b), and the attempt to justify it on the footing of Section 9A membership shortfall was legally unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the cancellation order was vitiated for breach of natural justice and for relying on material not furnished to the Union.

Analysis: The Court held that cancellation of registration affects the fundamental right to form associations under Article 19(1)(c), so fair hearing is mandatory. The Registrar relied on statements recorded much later during an enquiry conducted behind the Union's back, in the premises of the employer, and those statements were neither furnished to the Union nor offered for rebuttal. The notice under the proviso to Section 10 did not disclose the real basis of proposed action under Section 10(b), and the order could not be supported by reasons later supplied in the counter-affidavit. The procedure adopted therefore offended the principles of natural justice and rendered the order invalid.

Conclusion: The cancellation order was vitiated by violation of natural justice.

Issue (iii): Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the alternative remedy of appeal under Section 11 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and whether the employer was entitled to be heard in the cancellation proceedings.

Analysis: The Court held that the existence of an appellate remedy did not bar writ jurisdiction where fundamental rights were infringed, natural justice was violated, or the order was without jurisdiction. The employer was not a person aggrieved within the meaning of Section 11 merely because it may be inconvenienced by registration of the union or by refusal to cancel registration. The Act and the Regulations did not confer any right on the employer to participate as a party in the cancellation proceedings. The employer could furnish information, but the decision had to be taken independently by the Registrar.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable, and the employer had no right to be heard as a matter of entitlement in the cancellation proceedings.

Final Conclusion: The cancellation of the trade union's registration was set aside because the Registrar acted without a legally sustainable basis under the Act and in breach of fair procedure, though liberty was reserved to proceed in accordance with law if so advised.

Ratio Decidendi: A trade union's registration cannot be cancelled by treating a post-registration membership dispute as a case under Section 10(b); the statutory notice must disclose the true jurisdictional basis for action, and any cancellation affecting Article 19(1)(c) rights must be preceded by disclosure of the material relied upon and a fair opportunity to meet it.

---