Subsequent De-registration of a Trade Union Does Not Abate a Validly Referred Industrial Dispute

The State Government referred an industrial dispute regarding a "charter of demands" to the Industrial Tribunal in 2005.

The dispute was raised by Respondent No. 2, which was a registered Trade Union at the time of the reference.

During the stage of arguments on 20.07.2023, the registration of Respondent No. 2 was cancelled by the competent authority.

The petitioner (employer) filed applications before the Tribunal arguing that the case was no longer maintainable due to the union's de-registration.

On 02.02.2026, the Tribunal passed an order holding that subsequent de-registration does not affect the validity of the ongoing proceedings.

The petitioner challenged this order before the High Court via a writ petition.

The court applied Section 2(qq) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which defines a "Trade Union" as one registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926.

Section 36 of the ID Act stipulates that workmen are to be represented by officers of a registered trade union.

The court relied on State of Bihar v. D.N. Ganguly (AIR 1958 SC 1018) to establish that once a reference is made, the government cannot cancel it.

the court applied the principle from Polypharma Pvt. Ltd. v. Kamgar Sabha [(2006) ILLJ620BOM], which holds that the character of a dispute is determined at the date of reference and subsequent withdrawal of support or change in union status does not divest the Tribunal of jurisdiction.

The Court reasoned that while de-registration impacts the union’s status as a "corporate body" and its statutory right to formally represent workers under Section 36, it does not result in the "civil death" of the underlying industrial dispute.

Since the reference was validly made when the union was registered, the Tribunal became seized of the matter.

The Court distinguished between the existence of the dispute and the mode of representation.

It noted that the dispute fundamentally concerns the substantive rights of the workmen, and the reference survives because the referring government lacks the power to supersede it once initiated.

However, since Section 2(qq) and Section 36 strictly require registration for a union to act as a legal representative, Respondent No. 2 cannot continue to participate in its capacity as an unregistered entity.

Nevertheless, the Court observed that the workmen themselves—being the real parties in interest—retain the right to pursue the dispute through alternative representation.

It ordered that Respondent No. 2, being currently unregistered, cannot participate further in the proceedings. However, it directed that the reference remains valid and the substantial number of workmen involved are at liberty to appear and pursue the dispute directly or through other authorized modes until the union is re-registered or the reference is adjudicated. The Tribunal was directed to consider the evidence already on record.

The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.