Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/14 vs The Labour Commissioner Cum Registrar … on 19 August, 2025
Page No.# 1/14
GAHC010051682025
2025:GAU-AS:10987
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : CRP(IO)/85/2025
CHEMISTS AND DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION OF ASSAM,
A TRADE UNION FORMERLY REGISTERED UNDER THE TRADE UNIONS
ACT, 1929 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT BANINAGAR, REHABARI,
GUWAHATI IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN-781008
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SRI LITU BARMAN
VERSUS
THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER CUM REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS OF
ASSAM AND ANR.
SHRAM BHAWAN, ULUBARI, GUWAHATI- 781007 IN THE DISTRICT OF
KAMRUP(M), ASSAM
2:MD. ABED ULLAH
S/O LATE SAFI ULLAH
R/O BISHOP PLAZA
COL. J. ALI ROAD
LAKHTOKIA
GUWAHATI- 781001
ASSA M
Linked Case : I.A.(Civil)/2182/2025
LABOUR COMMISSIONER CUM REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS ASSAM
SHRAM BHAWAN
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI- 781007
DISTRICT- KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
Page No.# 2/14
VERSUS
CHEMISTS AND DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION OF ASSAM
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT BANINAGAR
REHABARI
GUWAHATI-781008
DISTRICT- KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
------------
Advocate for : MR S CHAKRABORTY
Advocate for : MR. A BHATRA appearing for CHEMISTS AND DRUGGISTS
ASSOCIATION OF ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A BHATRA, MR. B D DEKA,MR. M DAS,MR A DEKA,N
CHAUDHURY
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. P HAZARIKA (R-1), MR S CHAKRABORTY (R-1)
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN
ORDER
19.08.2025
Heard Mr. B. D. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. S.
Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1; and Mr. S. Dutta,
learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. I Lahiri, learned counsel for the
respondent No. 2.
2. By this common order, it is proposed to dispose of the present Civil
Revision Petition (I/O) No. 85 of 2025 and also the I.A.(C) No. 2182 of 2025, as
the parties involved in both are same and a common question of law is involved
in the same.
3. In the Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
the petitioner, namely, Chemists and Druggists Association of Assam (petitioner
Page No.# 3/14
association hereinafter), has challenging the orders dated 10.02.2025 and
21.02.2025, passed by the learned Labour Court at Guwahati (Labour Court
hereinafter), in Misc. Case No. 1/2023, arising out of Appeal No. 1/2023.
3.1. It is to be noted here that vide impugned orders dated 10.02.2025 and
21.02.2025, the learned Labour Court has vacated the order dated 07.09.2023,
by which the order dated 30.08.2023, passed by the Registrar of Trade Unions,
Assam, was stayed till disposal of the appeal and rejected the application filed
under Order 41 Rule 5, read with Order 39 Rule 1 and 2, also read with Section
151 of the CPC.
3.2. And in the I.A.(C) No. 2182 of 2025, the applicant/ respondent No.1 has
prayed for vacation of the order dated 26.03.2025, passed by this court, by
which the order dated 30.08.2023, so passed by the respondent No.1 was
stayed.
4. Mr. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
association had preferred an appeal, being Appeal No. 1/2023, against the order
dated 30.08.2023, passed by the Registrar, Trade Unions, Assam, thereby
cancelling the registration of the petitioners’ association before the learned
Labour Court. In the said appeal, the petitioner association had also filed an
application under Order 41 Rule 5, read with Order 39 Rules 1 & 2, also read
with Section 151 of the CPC for staying the order dated 30.08.2023, passed by
the Registrar of Trade Unions, Assam. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court, vide
order dated 07.09.2023, had granted stay of the order dated 30.08.2023. But,
vide order dated 21.02.2025, the learned Labour Court had vacated the earlier
order dated 07.09.2023.
4.1. Mr. Deka further submits that the petitioner association is Trade Union,
Page No.# 4/14
formerly registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (the Act of 1926
hereinafter) having its registered office at Baninagar, Rehabari, Guwahati and
the said association was affiliated to the All India Organization of Chemists and
Druggist. And at the time of registration of the petitioner association, it had
submitted one application along with the Memorandum of Association of the
CDAA and on the basis of the application, the Registrar of Trade Unions had
registered the petitioner association. Mr. Deka further submits that before filing
the application for registration under the Act of 1926, the petitioner association
filed one application for registration under the Societies Registration Act, 1860
(the Act of 1860 hereinafter), but, the said application was withdrawn before
the registration being granted. Thereafter, on the basis of some allegations filed
by the respondent No. 2 herein, the Registrar of Trade Unions, vide impugned
order dated 30.08.2023, cancelled the same.
4.2. Further submission of Mr. Deka is that while the appeal was pending
before the learned Labour Court, cancellation of the order of registration of the
petitioner association, vide order dated 30.08.2023, passed by the learned
Labour Commissioner would have resulted in serious civil consequences and for
which, it had preferred one appeal before the learned Labour Court and the
learned Labour Court had granted stay of the same, vide order dated
07.09.2023. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court, vide order dated 21.02.2025,
had vacated the aforementioned interim order. Mr. Deka further submits that
while vacating the interim order, the learned Labour Court had failed to take
note of the civil consequences, while the same has already been observed by a
coordinate bench of this court that the allegation of fraud allegedly practiced by
association cannot be summarily decided and that the learned Labour Court, on
the ground that the trial will take long time, had vacated the interim order
Page No.# 5/14
without comprehending the civil consequences such as de-recognition of the
body.
4.3. Mr. Deka also submits that it is a fact that the petitioner association had
produced one of the two resolutions adopted by the union, and that the Section
5 of the Act of 1926 requires no resolution for registration of a trade union,
rather it requires only memorandum of association, which the petitioner
association had already furnished. Mr. Deka further submits that there are as
many as 5000 members in the association and if the interim was not allowed to
continue till disposal of the appeal pending before the learned Labour Court,
serious prejudice will be caused to the members and that even if the interim
order passed by the learned Labour Court is set aside, the respondent No. 1
would not suffer any prejudice.
4.4. It is also submitted by Mr. Deka that in the case of Mool Chand Yadav
and Another vs. Raza Buland Sugar Company Limited, Rampur and
Others, reported in (1982) 3 SCC 484, Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing
with Order 41 Rule 5 of the CPC had held that if the orders are challenged and
the appeals are pending, one cannot permit a swinging of pendulum
continuously taking place during the pendency of the appeal and that judicial
approach requires that during the pendency of the appeal, the operation of an
order having serious civil consequences must be suspended, more so, when the
appeal is admitted. As such, Mr. Deka submits, while the appeal is pending
before the learned Labour Court, the order passed by the Registrar of Trade
Unions has to be stayed and under such circumstances, it is contended to allow
this petition by setting aside the impugned order passed by the learned Labour
Court on 07.09.2023.
Page No.# 6/14
5. Per-contra, Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, and
applicant in I.A. (C) No.2182/2025, has vehemently opposed the petition and
also opposed further extension of the order dated 26.03.2025, passed by this
court by which the impugned order dated 30.08.2025, was stayed. Mr.
Chakraborty has pointed out that before filing an application before the
Registrar of Trade Unions, the petitioner association had filed an application
under the Act of 1860 for registration of their association. But, the same could
not be registered under the said Act since the Secretary of the association has
one criminal case against him pending before the court and thereafter, it has
fraudulently filed another application enclosing a separate resolution, but, with
same signatures of the office bearers, on the strength of which the Registrar of
Trade Unions had registered the petitioner association. But, thereafter, one Mr.
Abedulla had apprised the Registrar of Trade Unions that the registration of the
petitioner association was obtained fraudulently, by forging the resolution and
then, the Registrar, Trade Unions had issued one notice to the petitioner
association and after hearing both the parties and considering the materials
placed on record had rightly cancelled the registration. Mr. Chakraborty further
submits that though the learned Labour Court had granted stay of the order
dated 30.08.2023, yet, subsequently, the learned Labour Court considering all
the aspects, had vacated the said stay order and the same being challenged in
this petition and that this court without considering the prima-facie case, the
balance of convenience and the irreparable loss had stayed the order and the
same is liable to be vacated and that the petition is liable to be dismissed.
5.1. To strengthen his submission, Mr. Chakraborty has referred following
decisions:-
(i) S.J. Ebenezer vs. Velayudhan and Others, reported in
Page No.# 7/14(1998) 1 SCC 633 and
(ii) Estralla Rubber vs. Dass Estate (P) Limited, reported in
(2001) 8 SCC 97.
6. Whereas, Mr. Dutta, learned senior counsel for the respondent No.2,
submits that though it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that there are serious civil consequences, yet, it is not true and that even if their
registration is cancelled, their body will not be de-recognized by the parent
body. Mr. Dutta further submits that the petitioner association has failed to
produce the resolutions adopted by their union before the learned Labour Court
and all these factors go to show that the registration was obtained fraudulently
and that this court while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India cannot examine the veracity of the allegation on the basis
of which the jurisdiction of the petitioners’ association was cancelled. Under
such circumstances, Mr. Dutta submits that the order passed by the learned
Labour Court dated 07.09.2023, requires no interference of this court and
therefore, it is contended to dismiss this petition.
7. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, I
have carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on
record and also perused the orders dated 10.02.2025 and 21.02.2025, passed
by the learned Labour Court and also perused the decisions referred by learned
counsel for both the parties.
8. A reading of the order dated 10.02.2025, indicates that the learned Labour
Court, having perused the order dated 07.09.2023 observed that the very
purpose of the passing the injunction order dated 07.09.2023, in favour of the
appellant was in order to enable them to take part in the election process of the
Page No.# 8/14
National Trade Union meet which is already over. Further extension of order
dated 07.09.2023 would only cause delay in conducting expedite trial of the
case and then considering the same, the learned Court had vacated the order
dated 07.09.2023.
8.1. Also a careful perusal of the order dated 21.02.2025, it appears that the
learned Labour Court, considering all the aspects, had arrived at a finding that
without proper examination of witnesses involved in the main appeal, further
extension of the stay order/injunction order would cause undue delay in
conducting expedite trial of the appeal and thereafter, vacated the stay order
dated 07.09.2023.
8.2. And while arriving at such a finding, the learned Labour Court had also
discussed the principle of granting temporary injunction and observed that the
petitioner/appellant had raised an issue against the respondent that in spite of
all complaints raised against the petitioner/appellant were found to be meritless
and the matter ended there, but, the respondent suddenly on 12.05.2023,
issued a show cause notice under Section 10 (b) of the Act of 1926 for
cancellation of the certificate of registration and vide impugned order dated
30.08.2023, the respondent No.1, had cancelled the registration of the
petitioner/appellant.
8.3. The learned Labour Court further observed that in contradiction to the
statements made by the appellant/petitioner, the respondent/opposite party has
vehemently denied the points, by submitting that a mere examination of the
minutes of the two meetings, purportedly held on 12.08.2018, clearly shows the
fraud committed by the appellant/petitioners. It is also stated by the
respondent/opposite party that in the minutes of meeting of 12.08.2018, it
appears that the Secretary of the Association is one Mr. Dilip Chandra Goswami
Page No.# 9/14
and the said person had applied for registration under the Trade Unions Act on
27.02.2019. However, the resolution adopted in the meeting held on
12.08.2018, which was submitted before the Registrar of Firms and Societies,
the Secretary of the Association appears to be one Mr. Jitu Barman, who applied
for registration on 05.10.2018, on the basis of that resolution and an association
cannot project two different Secretaries appointed/elected in one meeting.
8.4. Further observation of the learned Labour Court is that the
appellant/petitioner amongst many points in his injunction petition, has mainly
stressed on the point that the petitioner/appellant is the representative for the
State of Assam and ordinary member with the All India Organization of Chemist
and Druggist and that membership to the said organization required a
registration. Thus, if the cancellation is given effect to, there is possibility that
the same may lead to cessation of the petitioner’s/appellant’s membership in
the national body. The respondent/opposite party in his reply stated that the
requirement of registration for enrolment as ordinary member of All India
Organization of Chemists and Druggist does not entitle the petitioner to obtain
registration by fraudulent means under the Trade Unions Act.
8.5. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court went on to observe that perusal of
the case record reveals that vide order dated 07.09.2023, the learned Labour
Court was pleased to grant an order of stay in favour of the petitioner/appellant
considering their urgency to take part in the ensuing election process of the
National Trade Union meet amongst all other points as contended by the
petitioner in the injunction petition. A meticulous scrutiny of the documents
available on the record, such as the minutes of the two meetings, dated
12.08.2018, involves signatures of many members who attended the meeting
and who are yet to be physically examined as witnesses in the main appeal.
Page No.# 10/14
Furthermore, the petitioner/appellant is yet to adduce his evidence-on-affidavit
and all other vital documents, such as the original proceeding books of the
meeting held along with the minutes of the meeting in order to establish his
claim and to prove the legality and validity of the documents and that apart, an
injunction is an equitable remedy and shall be granted if the right being
protected is clear, unquestioned and substantial and in the present case though
the court in its initial stage of the proceeding had passed an order of injunction
in favour of the appellant/petitioner, but after receipt of notice the
respondent/opposite party has duly appeared before the court with substantial
documents and legitimate pleadings and has put forward many mixed questions
of law and facts with regard to the validity and legality of the claims of the
appellant/petitioner which requires proper adjudication and trial for a decision to
be arrived by the court.
8.6. The learned Labour Court also observed that before considering the
submission of the appellant/petitioner the moot question involved in the petition
for injunction appears to be the main issue and dispute involved in the main
appeal, which requires proper and meticulous scrutiny of documents and
evidences of witnesses. Thereafter, considering the nature of the dispute and
the pleadings of both side, discloses many mixed questions of facts which
require proper adjudication in the original appeal, i.e. Appeal No. 01/2023, on
proper appreciation of evidences and personal appearances of witnesses by
both sides, as there some vital persons’ names are involved in connection with
order dated 30.08.2023.
9. Thus, it appears that though the learned Labour Court had discussed the
principles of granting injunction, yet, it has not recorded a definite finding
regarding presence or absence of prima-facie case, balance of convenience and
Page No.# 11/14
irreparable loss in favour of or against the appellant/petitioner herein. It has
cancelled the order on the ground that without proper appreciation of evidence
and examination of witnesses, involved in the main appeal, further extension of
stay order/injunction order, would cause delay in conducting expedite trial of the
appeal.
9.1. But, there is no indication in the impugned order dated 21.02.2025, that
because of the interim/stay/injunction order, the trial in the appeal got delayed.
Whereas, the impugned order indicates that the learned Labour Court has
observed that the respondent/opposite party entered appearance on receipt of
the notice and put forwarded many mix questions of facts and law with regard
to the legality and validity of the claim of the appellant/petitioner, which requires
proper adjudication and trial for a decision to be arrived at by the said court.
That being so, vacation of the impugned order of stay dated 07.09.2023, by the
impugned order dated 21.02.2025, to the considered opinion of this court fails
to withstand the legal scrutiny, if the same is considered in the light of the
submissions so advanced by learned counsel for both the parties in this civil
revision petition.
10. It is being pointed out by Mr. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner that
there are civil consequences on vacation of the stay order and as the petitioner
association is a trade union with more than 5000 members and affiliated to the
national body and in the event of cancellation of its representation, it will be de-
recognized by the parent body. Mr. Deka further pointed out that even if the
impugned order is continued till disposal of the appeal, the respondent No. 1,
i.e. the Registrar of Trade Unions, would not suffer any prejudice, and there
appears to be substance in the same.
Page No.# 12/14
11. In the case of Mool Chand Yadav (Supra), referred by Mr. Deka,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed that if
the orders are challenged and the appeals are pending, one cannot permit a
swinging pendulum continuously taking place during the pendency of the appeal
and judicial approach requires that during the pendency of the appeal, the
operation of an order having serious civil consequences must be suspended,
more so, when the appeal is admitted. Relevant observation is quoted as
under:-
“4. We heard Mr S.N. Kacker, learned counsel for the
appellants, and the respondents appeared by Caveat through
Mr Manoj Swarup, Advocate. We are not inclined to examine
any contention on merits at present, but we would like to
take notice of the emerging situation if the operation of
the order under appeal is not suspended during the pendency
of the appeal. If the FAFO is allowed obviously Mool Chand
Yadav would be entitled to continue in possession. Now, if
the order is not suspended in order to avoid any action in
contempt pending the appeal, Mool Chand Yadav would have to
vacate the room and hand over the possession to the
respondents in obedience to the Court’s order. We are in
full agreement with Mr Manoj Swarup, learned Advocate for
respondents, that the Court’s order cannot be flouted and
even a covert disrespect to Court’s order cannot be
tolerated. But if orders are challenged and the appeals are
pending, one cannot permit a swinging pendulum continuously
taking place during the pendency of the appeal. Mr Manoj
Swarup may be wholly right in submitting that there is
intentional flouting of the Court’s order. We are not
interdicting that finding. But judicial approach requires
that during the pendency of the appeal the operation of an
order having serious civil consequences must be suspended.
More so when appeal is admitted.
Page No.# 13/14
…………………………………………………………………………………….”
12. In view of the aforementioned proposition of law, while there are civil
consequences on vacation of the impugned order, after admission of appeal and
also after recording a finding that there involved mix questions of facts about
legality and validity, which require proper adjudication and trial, for arriving at a
finding by the learned Labour Court and as such, the impugned order dated
21.02.2025, so passed by the learned Labour Court, appears to be arbitrary and
illegal and therefore, this court is inclined to interfere with the same by
exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
13. I have carefully gone through the decisions referred by Mr. Chakraborty,
the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and also I have considered his
submissions in the light of the proposition of the said decisions. There is no
quarrel at the bar about the proposition of law laid down in the cases referred
by Mr. Chakravarty. But, in the given facts and circumstances on the record, the
same would not come to his assistance.
14. In the result, I find sufficient merit in this civil revision petition and
accordingly, the same stands allowed. The impugned orders passed by the
learned Labour Court, dated 10.02.2025 and 21.02.2025, stand set aside and
quashed.
14.1. On the other hand, in view of aforesaid discussion and finding, specially
taking note of the ratio laid down in the case of Mool Chand Yadav (Supra), I
find the I.A.(C) No. 2182 of 2025, devoid of merit and accordingly, the same
stands dismissed.
15. Before parting with the record, this court is inclined to observe that this
Page No.# 14/14
court has not expressed any opinion on merit of the appeal pending before the
learned Labour Court. Whatever observation is made herein above, is only for
the purpose of disposal of the present Civil Revision Petition and also the I.A.(C)
No. 2182 of 2025. The learned Labour Court shall proceed to dispose of the
appeal as expeditiously as practicable, without being influenced by the
observation made herein above.
16. In terms of above, this civil revision petition stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant