A competent authority must give a reasoned decision on material objections to trade-union registration.

Opposite Party No. 5, Tata Steel FAP, Athagarh Thika Shramik Sangha, was registered on 8 September 2026.

The petitioner, a registered trade union, challenged the registration on the ground that some persons listed as members of Opposite Party No. 5 were members of the petitioner-union and had sworn affidavits denying membership of Opposite Party No. 5.

The petitioner said it had submitted 33 such affidavits.

After the petitioner sought cancellation of the registration, the Joint Labour Commissioner rejected its request on 21 September 2026, stating that he was not the competent appellate authority under the Trade Unions Act, 1926.

The petitioner challenged that order by writ petition.

1. Whether the order rejecting the petitioner’s cancellation request was adequate when it did not disclose consideration of the objections and supporting affidavits concerning Opposite Party No. 5’s membership particulars.

2. Whether the disputed membership evidence should be determined by the High Court or remitted to the competent statutory authority for decision after hearing the affected parties.

Section 10 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 empowers the Registrar to withdraw or cancel a certificate of registration, including where it was obtained by fraud or mistake, and requires prior notice to the registered trade union before cancellation otherwise than on its own application.

Administrative and quasi-judicial authorities exercising statutory powers with civil consequences must give reasons showing that they considered the material contentions and relevant evidence; reasons also enable judicial review and guard against arbitrary decision-making.

Reasons also enable judicial review and guard against arbitrary decision-making; relying on Basudev Dutta v. State of West Bengal, 2024 INSC 940, and Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496.

An order must be assessed by the reasons it contains and cannot be supplemented later, as explained in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC 405.

The impugned order did not show whether the authority considered the 33 affidavits, verified their contents, or had reasons to reject the petitioner’s objections; a reference to an earlier verification was insufficient by itself.

Because resolving the membership dispute required assessment of contested facts and evidence within the statutory authority’s domain, the High Court declined to decide those matters in writ jurisdiction.

It instead directed that the petitioner and Opposite Party No. 5 be heard and that the competent authority consider the affidavits, membership particulars, verification report, and other relevant material before issuing a reasoned decision.

The authority must hear both parties, consider the relevant material, and pass a reasoned order in accordance with the Act and applicable Rules, as far as practicable within six weeks of communication of the judgment.

The Court expressed no opinion on the genuineness of the affidavits, the validity of the registration, or the merits of cancellation.