1 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL  NO.  7244 OF 2003

Indo  Count  Choongnam,  Employees  Union & Anr.

.... Appellants

Versus

Registrar (Bombay Industrial Relation Act)  

& Anr.

.... Respondents

O R D E R

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This  appeal  is  directed  against  the  judgment  and  order  dated  

03.12.2002 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad.  The  

facts in detail have been mentioned in the impugned judgment and hence we

2 need not repeat the same here.   

The short  question  in  this  appeal  is  whether  in  an appeal  under  

Section 20 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (hereinafter for short  

"the Act") while canceling the registration of the appellant-Employees Union the  

Industrial Court could direct registration of respondent No. 2 union.   

Under Section 13 of the Act, if any union wants registration, it has to  

make an application to the Registrar.  Hence, in our opinion, registration to a  

Union-A cannot be granted in an appeal before the Industrial Court, where the  

question is about validity of the registration of Union-B.  The union seeking  

registration must make its own application.   

Learned counsel for the respondent has referred to Section 20(3) of  

the Act, which reads as under :-

3 "20. Appeal to Industrial Court from order of Registrar :-

(1) x x x xx x xxx xx

(2) x x x xx x xxx xx

(3) The Industrial Court in appeal may confirm, modify or rescind  

any  order  passed  by  the  Registrar  and  may  pass  such  

consequential orders as it  may deem fit.   A copy of the orders  

passed by the Industrial Court shall be sent to the Registrar."

In  our  opinion,  the aforesaid  provision  has no  application  to  the  

present case.  An order granting registration to a union which has not filed an  

application under Section 13 of the Act, but which has filed an appeal under  

Section 20(3) challenging the registration granted to another union cannot be  

passed under the said provision.  By the said provision, the order passed by

4 the Registrar can only be confirmed, modified or rescinded by the Industrial  

Court, and such consequential orders may be passed as may be deemed fit by  

the Industrial Court.  In our view the provision cannot be interpreted to mean  

that  while  the  Industrial  Court  could  have  canceled  the  registration  of  the  

appellant-employees union,  it  could  by the same order direct  registration of  

another employees union.   

We are informed that the factory to which the appellant-employees  

union was attached has since been closed.   

In the above facts and circumstances, we set aside that part of the  

impugned order dated 03.12.2002 whereby the respondent No. 2 union has been  

granted registration.

Appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.  No order as to costs.

5

...........................J.        (MARKANDEY KATJU)

...........................J.        (H.L. DATTU)

New Delhi May   05, 2009