HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 8581 of 2024 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J. IA/2/2024 1. This is an application for impleadment of the applicants namely Barun Kumar Khan, Shashank Shekhar, Radheyshyam Yadav, Anil Kumar Yadav and Rajesh Gupta as party. 2. We have examined the impleadment application and for the ends of justice, the applicants are permitted to intervene in the matter and make their submissions. Order on writ petition 1. We have heard Shri Anil Kumar Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Alok Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Vinod Kumar Singh, Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State and Shri Rishabh Kapoor, learned counsel for the intervenor. 2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the writ petitioners have made following main prayer(s): "(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Alok Mishra, Priyanshu Shukla Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Anurag Srivastava, Krishna Kumar Vishwakarma, Punit Kumar Yadav, Rishabh Kapoor State Bank Of India Officer Association Thru. General Secy. And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Labour Govt. Of U.P. Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 18-09-2024, passed by the opposite party no.2, contained as Annexure No.1 to this writ petition; (ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to give effect to the impugned order dated 18-09-2024, passed by the opposite party no.2, contained as Annexure No.1 to this writ petition; (iii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties that the Registration Certificate No.9488 dated 28-02-2008 of the petitioners Trade Union be considered as legal and valid as it was prior to passing of the impugned order dated 18/09/20224. (iv) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties, especially the opposite party no.4 to defreeze the bank accounts of the petitioners Trade Union, which have been ceased by the opposite parties in pursuance of the impugned order dated 18- 09-2024;" 3. Upon perusal of the writ petition and the affidavit that has been filed by the various parties including impleadment application filed by Shri Rishabh Kapoor, Advocate, we find that several complaints have been filed by the intervening applicants. What is to be noted is that the show cause notice dated 21.06.2023, that was issued to the petitioner, was based on the complaint that has been filed by the intervening applicants/complainant before the date of the show cause notice. Further complaints were also filed by the intervening applicants/complainants subsequent to the date of the show cause notice and no further show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. 4. The impugned order, however, deals with all the complaints that have been filed, the ones that were filed prior to the show cause notice and also the ones that were filed subsequent to the show cause notice. The petitioner has also made out a case for violation of the principles of natural justice on the grounds that the impugned order contains grounds for cancellation of the registration beyond the scope of the show cause notice. 5. Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the following WRIC No. 8581 of 2024 2 judgements: (i) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Others; (1998) 8 SCC 1, (ii) Amin Khan v. State of U.P. & Others; (2008) 4 ALJ 62, (iii) Neyveli National Workers Union and another v. Additional Registrar II of Trade Unions and Deputy Commissioner of Labour II, Chennai and another; 1999 (2) L.L.N. 747, (iv) Coromandal Cement Factory Employees Union v. Deputy Registrar Trade Unions and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Kurnool and others; 2001 (1) L.L.N. 104, (v) Tata Memorial Hospital Workers' Union and another v. Madhukar S. Wani and others; 1998 (2) L.L.N. 752, (vi) Saraswat Co-operative Bank Employees' Union v. State of Maharashtra and others; 1996 (3) L.L.N. 608 and (vii) Registrar of Trade Unions and Joint Labour Commissioner v. Lake Palace Hotel Karya Karta Union and another; 1997 (1) L.L.N. 1011 to buttress his arguments that the presence of an alternative and efficacious remedy does not bar the writ court from intervening in a matter when exceptions as provided in Whirlpool Corporation (supra) are present. One of the said exceptions is the violation of the principles of natural justice. 6. We are of the view that there does appear to be violation of principles of natural justice as the impugned order goes beyond the show cause notice, and accordingly, prejudice has been caused to the petitioner as the petitioner could not deal properly with the grounds that have been stated in the impugned order for cancellation of the registration. 7. In light of above, we quash and set aside the impugned order dated 18.09.2024 and direct the authorities concerned to issue a fresh show cause notice dealing with all the complaints filed by the complainant. Copies of the said documents should also be provided to the petitioner. Once fresh show cause notice is issued, the authorities concerned must grant proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the intervening applicants and thereafter pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. The entire process of issuing the show cause notice, providing opportunity of hearing and thereafter passing a reasoned order, should be completed within a period of 12 weeks from date. 8. With the above directions, writ petition is disposed of. October 27, 2025 Anupam S/- WRIC No. 8581 of 2024 3 (Prashant Kumar,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM SINGH PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench