Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

INDO COURT CHOONDNAM, EMPLOYEES UNION &ANR. versus REGISTRAR (BOMBAY INDUSTRIAL RELATION ACT) & ANR.

Decided
5 May 2009
Judges listed
MARKANDEY KATJU, H.L. DATTU (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[2009] 8 S.C.R. 127 · 2009 INSC 675

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

p. 127, margin G

2

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 need not repeat the same here.

pp. 127–128, margin G

3

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.

p. 128, margin B

4

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.

p. 128, margin C

5

Learned counsel for the respondent has referred to Section 20(3) of the Act, which reads as under :- "20. Appeal to Industrial Court from order of Registrar :- (1) xxxxxxxxxxx (2) xx 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."

p. 128, margin D

6

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 the Registrar can only be confirmed, modified A 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 cancelled the registration of the appellant-employees union, it could by the B same order direct registration of another employees union.

pp. 128–129, margin G

7

We are informed that the factory to which the appellantemployees union was attached has since been closed.

p. 129

8

In the above facts and circumstances, we set aside that C part of the impugned order dated 03.12.2002 whereby the respondent No. 2 union has been granted registration.

p. 129

9

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

p. 129