Holding

The Supreme Court held that the cancellation of the union’s registration was not legal or valid because Section 10 does not permit cancellation on an application by a person other than the trade union and the alleged discrepancies do not constitute fraud or mistake.

Summary

The appellant, a former president of the Poona Employees Union, sought cancellation of the union's registration certificate alleging fraud or mistake, filing a petition under Section 10 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926. The Additional Registrar cancelled the certificate, the Industrial Court set aside that cancellation, and the High Court upheld the Industrial Court’s order, holding that the appellant had no locus standi and that the alleged discrepancies in the registration form were not grounds for cancellation. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether Section 10 permits cancellation on an application by a person other than the union, whether a registration obtained before the 2002 amendment can be invalidated for non‑compliance with post‑amendment provisions, and the meaning of "any" in the form. The Court held that the Act does not allow cancellation on a third‑party application, that the union did not obtain registration by fraud or mistake, and that the post‑amendment requirements cannot be applied retrospectively. Consequently, the High Court’s decision was affirmed and the appeal dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the appellant had locus standi to invoke proceedings under Section 10 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926.
Whether a registration certificate obtained by fraud or mistake can be cancelled under Section 10.
Whether the post‑2002 amendment provisions of Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Trade Unions Act can be applied to a union registered in 1986.
Interpretation of the word "any" in the application form – does it mean "all" industries.
Whether the Registrar can cancel registration for a mistake on his part without an enquiry and show‑cause notice.

Legislation cited

Bombay Trade Union Regulations, 1927s. Rule 8(2)
Central Trade Union Regulations, 1938
Trade Unions Act, 1926s. 10, s. 11, s. 4, s. 5, s. 6

Subjects

Trade Union registrationCancellation of registrationSection 10FraudMistakeLocus standiAmendment Act 2001Interpretation of "any"Industrial law

Judgment

[2014] 14 S.C.R. 543

R.G. D'SOUZA A
v.
POONA EMPLOYEES UNION &ANR.
(CivilApp~al No. 10129.of2010)

NOVEMBER 18, 2014 · B
[V. GOPALA GOWDA AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] ·
Trade Union Act, 1926 - s: o ,. .
1 Cancellation of
registration certificate - On facts, cancellation of the ·
registration certificate of trade union-respondent no. 1 by the C
Additional Registrar on the ground of non-filing bf the
necessary documents as per the Rules and Regulation and
that the certificate' was .obtained by mistake and fraud -
Industrial court setting aside ~he cancellation of ceitificate of
registration and High Court upholding the same - ·
0
. Interference with - Held: No valid or cogent reasons to
interfere - High Court rightly upheld the decision of the
Industrial Court holding that the cancellation of registration
was not legal or valid- Trade Union neither suppressed nor
supplied any information by frau<;J or mistake i~prde,r to obtain E
the Certificate of Registration - Discrepancy in providing
details in the prescribed Form ~·being a product of the
Amendment Act,' inserted in 2002, cannot invalidate nor is a
valid ground to cancel the Registration of the Trade. Union in
1~6 '
F
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELO : 1. The act of fraud or mistake cannot be
attributed to the Trade Union since the information
provided by the Trade Union for registering itself is not
by fraud or mistake as mandated under Section 10 of G
the Trade Union Act. The High Court rightly affirmed the
decision of the Industrial Court, wherein it rightly set
aside the cancellation of Certificate of Registration of the
Trade Union holding that it is not legal or valid.
H
543
544 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A There are no valid or cogent reasQns to interfere with
the same in exercise of this Court's Appellate Jurisdiction.
[Para 15 and ~ 9][553-G-H; 555-E-G] .
i. '
2. Sections 4, 5, and 6 of the Trade Union Act &
Rules, which provide for furnishing the details in the
B application to be submitted for registration of the Trade
Union,. must be·complied with to be entitled for
registration. However, the 1st proviso of Section 4;
clause (aa), (b) and (c) of Section 5 and clause (ee) &
(hh) of Section 6 were inserted to the Act only by the
C Amendment Act of 31 of 2001, w.e.f. 09.01.2002, whereas
the Trade Union was regist~red in the year 1986 when
part of the said provisions were not .present. Therefore,
, although it was necessary for the Trade Union to
c~mply with and provide all the necessary details under
D the said provisions that were relevant at the time of
registration, the Registrar either by mistake or due to
incorrect assessment or non-application of mind may
have issued a Certificate of Registration to the Trade
Union. This official act by the Registrar of Trade Unions
E cannot be nullified by him under Section 10 of the Act,
but can only be rectified by the appellate authority or
writ court'
as rightly opined by
'l
the High Cou'i1.
~ .
On facts,
.
the Trade Union has neither suppressed nor supplied
any information by fraud or mistake in order to obtain
F the Certificate of Registration. Therefore, discrepancy in
•
providing details in the prescribed Form 'A' being a
product of the Amendment Act cannot invalidate or is
not a valid ground to cancel the Certificate of Registration
of the. Trade Union. [Para 17 and 18][554-A-H; 555-C-E]
G 3. The High Court correctly held that the word
"any" in the application form and the Rules of the Trade
·Union under Section 6 of th'e Act can be considered as
"all". The High Court rightly held that the word "any"

H
R.G D'SOUZAv. POONA EMPLOYEES UNION &ANR. 545

could mean that the object the Trade Union was to A
operate in all types of industries in Pune District. The
necessity of specifying or disclosing the nature of
industry/industries in which the Trade Union intends to
operate and functions came only when the Section 2 of
the amendment Act of 31 of 2001 (w.e.f. 9.1.2002r was B
inserted in the Trade Unions Act, 1926, whereas the Trade
Union was registered in the year 1986. The requirement
of workmen engaged in an establishment or industry
with which it is connected to be members of the Trade
Union came only after Section 4 was amended and the C
provisos were incorporated which came into force w.e.f.
09.01.2002, which is much after the registration of the
Trade Union. This requirement was not needed at the
time of registration of the Trade Union as the said
amendment to the Act came after the registration of the o
same. [Para 18][554-E-H; 555-A-C]
Indian Express Newspapers (Born) Employees
Union v. KM. Desai & Ors. 1995 I CLR 677;
Maharashtra Engg. Plastic & General Kamgar v.
Chamundi Petroleum & Ors. 2007 1 CLR 810; E
Forbes Forbes Campbell & Co. Ltd. v. Engineering
Mazdoor Sabha (1979) 1 SCC 14; Registrar,
Trade Unions, Mysore v. M. Mariswamy 1974 LAB
l.C. 695; B.PL. Group of Companies Karmikara
Sangha v. Commissioner of Labour 2001 91 F
LL.N. 599 - referred to.
CASE LAW REFERENCE
19951CLR677 referred to. Para 6
2007 1 CLR 810 referred to. Para 6 G
(1979) 1 sec 14 referred to. Para 8
1974 LAB l.C. 695 referred to. Para 11
2001 91 L.L.N. 599 referred to. Para 12
H
546 SUPREME COURT REPORTS · [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A . CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
10129 of2010.
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.02.2009 of the
Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature of Bombay in
Writ Petition No. 4048 of 2008:. · ' · . ~.
B
· C. U. Singh, Sr.Adv., Gautam Narayan, Ramesh Babu
Iii'!. R., Advs., for the Appellant.·
~~·· .
·
f

.Colin Gonsalves, Sr.Adv., Ms. Suveni Banerjee, Ms. Jyoti
Mendiratta, Ms. Vaishali Sareen (For lyl/s. K. J. John & Co.),
c Advs. for the Respondents., , .1
· The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
I • . - ~ f
. V. GOPALA GOWDA, J; ·T

j ~ ' . I ! • •• j • -
1. The appellant has filed this appeal questioning the
correctness .of the Judgment and order dated 25.2.2009
D passed. in W.P. No.4048 of Z008 by the Division Bench of
High Court of Judicature at Bombay affirming the order of
Industrial Court, Pune dated 11 :04.2008 whereby the Industrial
Court set aside the 'order of Additional Registrar, cancelling
E the Registration Certificate of the Poona Employees Union-
the respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as the Trade
Union), urging various facts and legal contentions.
r I i;.;

2. The factual matrix and the rival legal contentions are
a
briefly stated h'ereunder with view to find out as to whether.
F the impugned Judgment and order warrants interference by
this Court under its appellate jurisdiction.
The appellantW?S the Unjon President of the Trade Union
'
when the application for the Registration of it was submitted.
Due to internal clashes, he was expelled from the Trade Union.
G There were some disputes between the Trade Union and
another Union namely, Bhartiya Kamgar Sena ("BK.S" for short)
pending before the Industrial Court. The appellant claimed that
he was an active member in the Labour movement and an
interested party and therefore, filed an application under
H Section 10 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (for short "the Act")
R.G. D'SOUZAv. POONA EMPLOYEES UNION &ANR. 547
[V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]

before the Additional Registrar of Trade Unions seeking A
cancellati0n of the Certificate of Registration of the Trade Union
on the ground that the same was obtained by fraud, mistake
or misrepresentation.
The ground taken for cancellation of the registration of
the Trade Union was non-filing of the necessary documents B
as per the Rules and Regulation and obtained Registration
Certificate by mistake and fraud which was accepted by the
Additional Registrar of the Trade Unions. The Additional
Registrar of Trade Unions by his order dated 12.2.2008
cancelled the registration of the Trade Union. C
3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Trade Union
filed an appeal under Section 11 of the Act before the Industrial
Court, Pune, the Appellate Authority. After hearing both the
parties, the Industrial Court, Pune passed an order on
11.4.2008, by recording its reasons, set aside the order passed D
by the Additional Registrar of Trade Unions.
4. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Industrial
Court, the appellant preferred writ petition No. 4048 of 2008
before the High Court of Bombay under Article 226 of the E
Constitution of India urging various grounds, inter alia
contending that the order passed by the Industrial Court is
vitiated both on the grounds of erroneous finding and error in
law. The High Court came out with the following two issues
involved in the petition:
F
(i) Whether the appellant had locus standito invoke
the proceedings under Section 10 of the Trade
UnionsAct, 1926?
(ii) Whether the Registration Certificate obtained by
fraud or mistake by the first respondent-Trade Union G
and so liable to be cancelled?
5. The High Court rejected the submissjons made on
behalf of the appellant and held that the appellant had no locus
to apply for cancellation of the Certificate of Registration of
H
548 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 14 S.C.R.

A the Trade Union and thatthe view taken by the Industrial Court
on the same is legal and valid. •.
6. Mr. C. U. Singh, the learned senior counsel on behalf
of the appellant has argued that the Industrial Court completely
mixed up the issues while answering the questions of law
B raised before it. It is urged by him that at the time of applying
for the registration, the Trade Union did not follow the provisions
under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act. The Trade Union ought to
have specifically mentioned the name/names of any
establishment or nature of any industry/industries in which the
C persons employed were to be united or combined. In the
absence of mentioning the name of industry and non-inclusion
of the same in the schedule in the application in the prescribed
form is a gross mistake on the part of the Trade Union. Our
attention was also drawn to the application submitted by the
D Trade Union before the Registrar of Trade Unions for its
registration. Further, the learned senior counsel urged on the
point of requirement of specific mention of the object or
purpose in the application for registration by the Trade Union
by relying upon Indian Express Newspapers (Bom)
E Employees Union v. K.M. Desai & Ors. 1 and Maharashtra
Engg. Plastic &General Kamgar v. Chamundi Petroleum
& Ors. 2 in support of his case. '
7. It is also contenied by the learned senior counsel that
the registration was obtained by mistake or fraud by the Trade
F Union and the same was not examined by either the Industrial
Court or the High Court. ·
8. He further contended that the details of the office
bearers of the Trade Union were not given in the Schedule-I of
G the list of officers as per the prescribed Form 'A', relevant
column 5, under Section 5(1)(c) of the Central Trade Union
Regulations, 1938. In support of the said legal contention he
.has placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in Forbes

'1995 I CLR 677
2
H 2007 1 CLR 810
R.G. D'SOUZA v. POONA EMPLOYEES UNION &ANR. 549
[V. GOPALAGOWDA, J.]

Forbes Campbell & Co. Ltd. v. Engineering Mazdoor A
Sabha3, wherein with regard to recognition of a Trade Union
this Court held that filing in'the form by furnishing details is
mandatory, and that form and rule must be read in tandem. It
was contended that the said decision with all fours is applicable
in justification of cancellation of Registration Certificate. B
9. It was further contended by the learned senior counsel
for the appellant that the High Court has erred in law in
interpreting the phrase 'mistake' occurred under Section 1O(b)
of the Act stating that the legislative wisdom which excludes
an act of mistake the power of review can be exercised by the C
Registrar of Trade Unions and the order of cancellation of its
Certificate of Registration can be made, but the High Court
has erroneously held that registration cannot be cancelled by
the Registrar in exercise of the power by him under Section
10oftheAct. · D
10. Further, the learned senior counsel placing strong
reliance upon Section 4 of the Act, pointed out that the
Amendment in view of the first proviso to Section 4 of the Act,
which mandates that no Trade Union of workmen shall be
registered unless at least ten percent or one hundred of the E
workmen whichever is less, engaged or employed in the
establishment or industry with which it is connected are the
members of such Trade Union, on the date of making of
application for registration. The second proviso states that no
Trade Union of workmen shall be registered unless it has on F
the date of making application not less than seven persons as ••
. its members, who are the workmen engaged or employed in
the establishment or industry with which it is connected. Such
requirement under Section 4 and its proviso is a statutory legal
requirement for either registered Trade Union or continues as G
a registered Trade Union even after the amendment to the Act
by bringing an Amendment to its constitution is the legal
requirement in accordance with the aforesaid provisos.
'( 1979) 1sec14
H
550 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A Therefore, he contends that non~compliance of the said legal
requirement by the Trade Union even after the amendment to
the Act has invited the cancellation of,its registration. This
cancellation was done in the instant case by the Registrar of
Trade Unions at the instance of the appellant. s·ince the same
B was not considered by the High Court, the impugned judgment
and order is liable to be set aside.
11. On the other hand, Mr. Colin Gonsalves, the learned
senior counsel on behalf of Trad.e Union, sought to justify the
impugned Judgment and order passed by the High Court by
C affirming the Judgment of th~ lnd~strial c;ourt by placing strong
reliance upon the fact that the Trade Union has been actively
working for the welfare of labourer&-since 1986. Cancellation
of the Registration Certificate by the Registrar of Trade Unions
at the instance of the appellant is totally impermissible under
D Section 10 of the Act. As per Section 10(a) of the Act, the
Registrar of,Trade Unions can take cognizance of the
cancellation on application by a Trade Union and not that of an
individual. It was contended 'that the appellant had no locus
standi under Section 1 O(a) of the Act to challenge the
E Registration Certificate issued by the Additional Registrar of
Trade Unions. It is also urged by him that as per Section 10(a)
of the Act the mistake ought to be on the part of the applicant
and could not be on the part of the Registering Authority in
support of the said contention and legal position, the learned
F senior counsel has relied upon the judgment of Karnataka High
•• Court in the 'case of Registrar, Trade Unions, Mysore v. ·M.
Mariswamy4, wherein the Court held as under:-
,· '
,"Index Note: (A) Trade UnionsAct (1926), Section 10(b)-
Withdrawal or cancellation of registration on ground of
G 'mistake must have been on'the part of the applicant Union·
and not on the part of th~ Registrar himself- withdrawal
or, cancellation cannot be made for the mistake of the
Registrar himself."

H '1974 LAB l.C. 695
R. G D'SOUZA v. POONA EMPLOYEES UNION &ANR. 551
. [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]

12. On the point of disclosure of the object, the learned A
senior counsel placed· reliance on B.P.L. Group of
Companies Karmikara Sangha v. Commissioner of
Labout4 in support of the submission made as stated above.
13. Learned senior counsel.appearing on behalf of the
Trade Union further justified the impugned judgment on three B
grounds. The authorisation and approval of the registration of
the Trade Union was made by the Registrar of Trade Unions.
In the absence of prohibition or prevention under the Statute
from being a general Trade Union, non-furnishing the name of
the industry or industries under Schedule Ill ih the relevant C
column SI. No. 5 of the application form it is specifically ·
mentioned "any" industry means "all", the object of registration
of the Trade Union further fortifies the stand taken by the Trade
Union that it is a general Trade Union, where it is empowered
to have enrolment of workmen from all the industries which D
are situated within the Pune District. Non-furnishing the name
of the industries in respect of which the Trade Union has been
registered does not vitiate its registration in law. Therefore,
non-furnishing the names of industries in the Schedule Ill portion
to the application in the prescribed form is only superfluous E
and making a big issue in this regard for justification fqr the
cancellation of Certificate of Registration of the Trade Union
is wholly untenable in law. Non-furnishing of the names of
industries in Schedule Ill to the application due to inadvertence
cannot be attributed as fraud or mistake on the part of the Trade ·· F
Union to get its registration with the Registrar of Trade Unions
and cancellation of the same is not permissible in law. It is not
the form, but the substance of the matter and substantial
compliance of the details that are furnished in the prescribed
form 'A' by the Trade Union that matters, this has been done in G
the case on hand by the Trade Union and therefore, the
impugned Judgment &order passed by the High Court is legal
and valid. Further, in response to the reliance placed upon the

5
2001 91 LLN. 599
H
552 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A two judgments namely, Indian Express Newspapers (Bom)
Employees Union (supra) and Chamundi Petroleum Case
(supra) by senior counsel for the appellants; the learned senior
counsel for the Trade Union submitted .that they are
distinguishable from the present case on hand. In the Indian
B Express Newspapers case (supra), the constitution of the
respondent-Trade Union which consisted of both journalists
and non-journalists working in the respondent-company (Indian
Express) only mentioned the ~bjects of the union in Schedule
0
'A' as printing press" and did_ not bear an entry of the
C newspaper establishment or a newspaper industry. It was held
in th<:'lt case that the Constitution of the respondent-Trade Union
did not permit it to enrol journalists and non-journalists
employed by the respondent-Company and that a newspaper
industry cannot be equated with the "printing press" industry
D as publication of newspaper and periodical involves many
more functions . .In the case of Chamundi Petroleum (supra)
the constitution of the Trade Union did not say that it is in relation
to workmen of working in petrol pumps. Therefore, the reliance
placed upon the aforesaid two judgments by the senior counsel
E on behalf of the appellant to justify the order of cancellation of
the Registration of the Trade Union are wholly untenable in law
as these cases do not apply to ~he facts and circumstances of
the case on hand as both the cases are distinguishable, ·
14. We have heard both the learned senior counsels for
F "the parties. After examining the correctness of the legal
contentions, we are in respectful agreement with the concurrent
finding and reasons recorded by the High Court as well as the
Industrial Court for the following reasons.
15. As per Section 10 of the Act, the Certificate of
G Registration of a Trade Union inay be withdrawn or cancelled
by the Registrar of Trade Union either on application of a Trade
Union inviting the attention of the Registrar of Trade Unions or
the Registrar may suo moto take cognizance under the said
section. There is no mention in the said provision about
H
R.G. D'SOUZA v. POONA EMPLOYEES UNION &ANR. 553
[V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]

cancellation of Registration of Trade Union on application by A
any other person. The said section permits the Authority to
cancel the registration of the trade union if, it is obtained by
fraud or mistake, but does not permit the Authority to cancel
the certificate of registration if, the same is granted by mistake
due to incorrect assessment or non-application of mind or B
mechanical act on the part of the Authority.
16. Even for the sake of argument, it is accepted by us
that the mistake is on the part of the Trade Union and in the
opinion of the Registrar of Trade Unions in exercise of his
powers under Section 10 of the Act cancels the Certification C
of Registration of the Trade Union, then it must be preceded
by an enquiry, followed by show cause notice, disclosing
grounds for initiating action so that the same can be answered
·by the noticee Union effectively. This was not done in the
present case on hand and the same has been rightly held by D
the High Court. Further Rule 8(2) of the Bombay Trade Union
Regulations 1927 clearly states that:-
"2) The Registrar on receiving an application for
withdrawal or cancellation of registration shall, before
granting the application, verify himself that the application E
was approved in general meeting of the Trade Union if it
was not so approved, that it h.as the approval of the
majority members of the Trade Union. For this purpose,
the Registrar may call for such further particulars as he
may deem necessary and may examine any officer of F
the Union."
The above said rule was not fully complied with by the
Registrar of Trade Unions arid the appellant has not submitted
any approval granted by a general body meeting or by majority
of the Trade Union for the withdrawal or cancellation of the G
registration of the Trade Union. The act of fraud or mistake
cannot be attributed to the Trade Union since the information
provided by the Trade Union for registering itself is not by fraud
or mistake as mandated under Section 1Oof the Act.
H
554 SUPREME COURTREPORTS (2014) 14 S.C.R.

A 17. With respect to the provisions of Sections 4, 5, and
6 of the Act & Rules, which provide for furnishing the details in
the application to be submitted for registration of the Trade
Union. The above said provisions of the sections clearly state
that they must be complied with for the applying-Union to be
B entitled for registration.However, it is essential to note that the
1•1 proviso of Section 4; clause (aa), (b) and (c) of Section 5
and clause (ee) & (hh) of Section 6 were inserted to the Act
only by the Amendment Act of 31of2001, w.e.f; 09.01.2002,
whereas the Trade Union was registered in the year 1986 when
c part of the above ·said provisions were not present. Therefore,
. '
in the present case on hand, although it was necessary for the
1
Trade Union to' . comply
-, '
_with anId provide. all the necessary
.
details.under the above said provisions that were relevant at
the time of registration, the Registrar either by mistake or due
. . . "' .. . -~

o .to incorrect assessment or non-appli.cation of mind may have
'

issued a Certificate of Registration to the Trade Union. This
official act by the Registrar of Trade Unions cannot be nullified
by him under Section 10 of the Act, but can only be rectified by
the appellate 'authority or writ court as rightly opined by the
E · High Co!Jrt in the impugned judg'ment.
... . ' . j -

18. In our considered view, the High Court has correctly
held.that the word "any" in the application form and the Rules
~ · I • _. I ·

of the Trade Union under Section 6 of the 'Act can be
considered as "all". The High Court
' .. •4
has rightly
. It
held that the j

F word "any" could mean that the object the Trade Union was to
operate in ail types of industries i~ Pune District. The necessity
of specifying or disclosing the nature of industry/industries in
which the Trade' Union intends to ope.rate a'nd functions came
only· when the Section 2 of the amendment Act of 31 of 2001
G (w.e.f. 9:1.2002) was inserted in the Trade UnionsAct, 1926,
whereas the Trade Union was 'registered in the year 1986.
The requirement of workmen engaged in an establishment or
industry with which it is connected to be members of the Trade
Union came only after Section 4 was amended and the
H provisos were incorporated which came into force w.e.f.
R.G. D'SOUZA v. POONA EMPLOYEES UNION &ANR. 555
[V GOPALA GOWDA, J.]

09.01.2002, which is much after the registration of the Trade A
Union. The first part of the proviso mandated that a Trade Union
must have at least ten percent or one hundred- workmen
engaged or employed in an establishment or industry who are
members of such Trade Union on the date of making the
application for registration. The second part of the proviso B
mandated that a Trade Union on the date of making application
for registration must have not less than seven persons as ·its
members who are engaged or employed in the establishment
or industry with which it is connected. This requirement was
not needed at the time of registration of the Trade Union as C
the above said· amendment to the Act came after the ,
registration of the same. From the facts and circumstances of
the case on hand, the Trade Uniori has neither suppressed
nor supplied any information by fraud or mistake in order to
obtain the Certificate of Registration. Therefore, discrepancy D
in providing details in the prescribed Form 'A' being a product
of the above AmendmentAct cannot invalidate or is not a valid
ground to cancel the Certificate of Registration of the Trade
Union and the decision of this Court in the case of Forbes
forbes Campbell (supra) as relied on by the learned senior E
counsel for the appellant is not relevant in the case on hand.
19. In the light of the above discussion and reasons
assigned by us, we are of the considered view that the High
Court.has rightly affirmed the decision of the Industrial Court,
wherein it has rightly set aside the cancellation of Certificate F
of Registration of the Trade Union holding that it is not legal or
valid. We find no valid or cogent reasons to interfere with the
same in exercise of this Court's Appellate Jurisdiction. The
appeal is dismissed. No costs.
G
N1dhi Jain ,. Appeal dismissed.

-'