Additional Registrar Of Trade Union And … vs Bhartiya Cement Majdoor Sangh, Jodhpur … on 6 August, 2025

Supreme Court – Daily Orders

Additional Registrar Of Trade Union And … vs Bhartiya Cement Majdoor Sangh, Jodhpur … on 6 August, 2025

Bench: Sudhanshu Dhulia, Aravind Kumar

                                                          1

     ITEM NO.19                                 COURT NO.7                     SECTION XV

                                   S U P R E M E C O U R T O F             I N D I A
                                           RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

     Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)                          No(s).   11376/2023

     [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 13-01-2022
     in DBSAW No. 741/2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature for
     Rajasthan at Jodhpur]

     ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNION AND
     DIVISIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER                                     Petitioner(s)

                                                        VERSUS

     BHARTIYA CEMENT MAJDOOR SANGH,
     JODHPUR SAMBHAG 163                                                       Respondent(s)

     FOR ADMISSION and I.R.

     Date : 06-08-2025 This petition was called on for hearing today.

     CORAM :
                          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA
                          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR

     For Petitioner(s)                   Ms. Bina Madhavan, Adv.
                                         Mr. S.Udaya Kumar Sagar, AOR
                                         Ms. Usha Bhaskar, Adv.

     For Respondent(s)                   Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Adv.
                                         Mr. Manik Gupta, Adv.
                                         Mr. Satya Mitra, AOR

                           UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                                              O R D E R

Heard learned counsel/senior counsel for the parties.

The question in this case is regarding the registration

of respondent’s trade union on which the objections were made

by the State that it does not fulfills the requirement as
Signature Not Verified
mandated under Section 4 of the Trade Union Act(for short “the
Digitally signed by
Nirmala Negi
Date: 2025.08.06
18:45:08 IST
Reason: Act”). The relevant Section 4 of the Act reads as:-

“4. Mode of registration.—20[(1)] Any seven or more
members of a Trade Union may, by subscribing their
2

names to the rules of Trade Union and by otherwise
complying with the provisions of this Act with respect
to registration, apply for registration of the Trade
Union under this Act:

[Provided that no Trade Union of workmen shall be
registered unless at least ten per cent or one hundred
of the 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:
Provided further that no Trade Union of workmen shall
be registered unless it has on the date of making
application not less than seven persons as its members,
who are workmen engaged or employed in the
establishment or industry with which it is connected.]
[(2) Where an application has been made under sub-
section (1) for the registration of a Trade Union, such
application shall not be deemed to have become invalid
merely by reason of the fact that, at any time after
the date of the application, but before the
registration of the Trade Union, some of the
applicants, but not exceeding half of the total number
of persons who made the application, have ceased to be
members of the Trade Union or have given notice in
writing to the Registrar dissociating themselves from
the application.]
►Issuance of certificate of registration.—Issuance of
certificate of registration by Registrar by mistake or
due to incorrect assessment or nonapplication of mind —
Power to rectify — Competent authority. Held, such
official act by Registrar cannot be nullified by him
under Section 10, but can only be rectified by
appellate authority or writ court, R.G. D’souza v.
Poona Employees Union, (2015) 2 SCC 526 : (2015) 1 SCC
(L&S) 517.”
3

Primarily the objection was that the trade union i.e.

respondent-Bhartiya Cement Majdoor Sangh, was not having 10%

of the workers as its members. All the same as it has been

observed by the Ld.Single Judge as well as by the Division

Bench of the High Court that it is not merely 10% of the total

members but as the record proviso shows the words are “unless

at least ten per cent or one hundred of the 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”. This

word “one hundred of the workmen” has not been considered by

the concerned authority.

Admittedly the respondent’s union has 382 workmen as we

have been informed at the Bar. Therefore, the denial of the

registration of trade union under Section 4 of the Act was

absolutely illegal and in violation of the law. We are in

total agreement with this findings of the High Court.

Consequently, we find no scope for interfering at this

stage in our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the

Constitution of India.

The present petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

Let the respondent’s union be registered as a trade union

unless it has already been done.

Pending application(s), if any shall stand disposed of.

(NIRMALA NEGI)                                     (RENU BALA GAMBHIR)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS                           ASSISTANT REGISTRAR