<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2013 (10) TMI 1561 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301878</link>
    <description>A trade union&#039;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&#039;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.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Jul 2023 10:58:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=677057" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (10) TMI 1561 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301878</link>
      <description>A trade union&#039;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&#039;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.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301878</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>