JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THE petitioner The Malwa Vanaspati Mazdoor Union, indore seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 12-12-1974 (Annexure E) passed by the Registrar of Representative Unions, Indore (respondent No. 2) cancelling the recognition of the petitioner under section 16 (b) (vi)of the M. P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 and the order dated 7-2-1975 (Annexure F) passed by the Industrial Court in an appeal under section 22 of the M. P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), affirming the order of the Registrar. ( 2. ) THE petitioner was admittedly the recognised Union of the Employees of Malwa Vanaspati and Chemical Company Ltd. , Indore when a strike was commenced therein on 3-6-1970. The employer applied to the Labour Court, indore under section 61 of the Act for a declaration of that strike to be illegal. By the order dated 31-7-1973 (Annexure C), the Labour Court declared that strike to be illegal. One of the prayers made in the application (Annexure A)to the Labour Court was that the individuals shown therein as non-applicants 2 to 6 be declared to have instigated and abetted the strike. It is significant that no such prayer was made in respect of the Union. Issue No. 2 was framed by the Labour Court to cover the question of instigation and abatement of the strike by the non-applicants 2 to 6 mentioned in Annexure A and was answered in the affirmative. However, no question arose for deciding whether the illegal strike had been instigated or abetted by the Union. A revision under section 66 of the Act was preferred to the Industrial Court, Madhya pradesh, Indore by the Union against declaration of the strike to be illegal. That revision was dismissed by the order dated 19-6-1974 (Annexure D) passed by the President, Industrial Court. However, reading contention No. 3 mentioned in para 2 of Annexure D and para 9 of that order, it does appear that the Industrial Court enlarged the scope of issue framed by the trial Court to cover the question of instigation and abetment of the strike so as to include within its ambit such an allegation also against the Union even though the question for decision related only to the non-applicants other than the Union. The result was that the Industrial Courts order (Annexure D) read as a whole amounts to a finding that the Union was also guilty of instigation and abetment of the illegal strike even though that was not a question for determination by the Labour Court against whose order the Industrial Court was hearing a revision and that too at the instance of the Union itself challenging declaration of the strike as illegal. After conclusion of the above proceeding resulting in the aforesaid strike being declared illegal, the Registrar of Representative Unions commenced a proceeding for cancellation of the recognition of the petitioner as the representative Union, under section 16 (b) (vi) of the Act. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. Thereafter, without himself reaching any conclusion of his own, the Registrar feeling bound by the aforesaid decision of the Industrial Court vide Annexure D, cancelled the recognition of the petitioner under section 16 (b) (vi) of the Act by his order (Annexure E) dated 12-12-1974. The only relevant part of the order is as follows:- "in view of the facts stated above, I am duty bound to enforce action to cancel the recognition of the said Union which I hereby do under section 16 (b) (vi) of the Act. " The earlier part of the order mentions the declaration of strike as illegal and production of a certified copy of the order (Annexure D) before him. An appeal as provided in section 22 of the Act was preferred by the Union against this order, to the Industrial Court, which has been dismissed by the President of the Industrial Court by order dated 7-2-1975 (Annexure F ). It was contended before the Industrial Court that the Registrar was bound to enquire into the matter himself and reach his own conclusion before cancelling the recognition on the ground that the Union had instigated or abetted the strike, which was declared to be illegal. Repelling this argument, the learned President of the Industrial Court has held that even though it was not necessary to decide this question in a proceeding relating to declaration of strike to be illegal, yet if that further conclusion is reached in the earlier proceeding, then it must be given effect to. Repelling this argument, the learned President of the Industrial Court has held that even though it was not necessary to decide this question in a proceeding relating to declaration of strike to be illegal, yet if that further conclusion is reached in the earlier proceeding, then it must be given effect to. The relevant portion of the order extracted from Annexure F is as follows :- "it is true that under section 80 all that is necessary is to declare a strike or lock out to be illegal. The Court is not necessarily bound to further express its opinion on the question as to who sponsored or instigated the strike. However, when in a given case the court has further reached the conclusion that the illegal strike was sponsored by a particular body of persons or Union and it has reached the findings, that finding could not be ignored by the Registrar, Representative Unions, while dealing with an application for cancellation of recognition. In my opinion, the view taken by the Registrar is correct. " ( 3. ) SHRI M. R. Deo, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the registrar abdicated his function in not deciding the question himself and treating the same to be concluded by the decision of the Industrial Court vide annexure D in the earlier proceeding, wherein the present question requiring decision of the Registrar, was not even involved. He adds, that at best the earlier decision could be treated as a piece of evidence and not decisive of the question, provided the question of incitement or abetment by the Union was involved therein. He contends that the proceeding before the Registrar under section 16 of the Act is a separate and independent proceeding subsequent to declaration of the strike as illegal wherein the disputed questions of fact have to be examined and decided afresh on enquiry and not merely with reference to the decision in the earlier proceeding. To illustrate his argument he said, that in a given case the strike declared to be illegal may have commenced spontaneously and continued thereafter against the wishes of the Union since rivalry amongst several Unions is not unknown. In such a case, he says, there could be no question of holding the Union to be liable even though the strike would be illegal. In such a case, he says, there could be no question of holding the Union to be liable even though the strike would be illegal. It is for this reason, he argues, that the liability of the Union has to be examined after the strike has been declared illegal and if the Registrar on enquiry is satisfied that such a liability can be fastened on the Union for the illegal strike, then alone the question of cancellation of its recognition under this provision arises. ( 4. ) IN our opinion, the argument of Shri Deo must be accepted and the petition allowed. ( 5. ) SECTION 16 of the Act in so far as it is relevant for the purpose of this petition is as under:- "16. Cancellation of recognition.-The Registrar shall cancel the recognition of a union- (a) (b) If after giving notice to such Union to show cause why its recognition should not be cancelled on the grounds specified therein and after holding an enquiry in the prescribed manner he is satisfied- (i) (ii) (iii)* (iv) (v) (vi) that it has instigated, aided or assisted the commencement or continuance of a strike or stoppage which has been held or declared to be illegal. " The above provision undoubtedly provides for an enquiry to be held by the registrar after notice to the Union and it is only if the Registrar is satisfied at the conclusion of the enquiry after taking into account the material placed by the Union that the Union had instigated, aided or assisted the commencement or continuance of the strike which has been held or declared to be illegal that the order of cancellation can be made by the Registrar. It is obvious that it is the satisfaction of the Registrar of the existence of the condition stated in the provision that gives him the jurisdiction to make an order cancelling the recognition of a Union. This power cannot be abdicated by the Registrar in favour of anyone else. It is obvious that it is the satisfaction of the Registrar of the existence of the condition stated in the provision that gives him the jurisdiction to make an order cancelling the recognition of a Union. This power cannot be abdicated by the Registrar in favour of anyone else. Section 22 provides an appeal to the Industrial Court against the order of the Registrar and there can be no doubt that the scope of this appeal is much wider than that of a revision under section 66 of the Act which is the remedy provided against declaration of strike to be illegal so that the Industrial Court is empowered also to examine questions of fact for itself in the appeal. There would be no need to provide for satisfaction of the registrar after an enquiry with notice to the Union and then an appeal from his order if cancellation of recognition of a Union were to follow automatically as a necessary consequence of the finding in an earlier proceeding relating to declaration of the strike as illegal. A contrary view would totally frustrate the object of these provisions. ( 6. ) WE find that the Registrar failed to discharge his function of reaching his own conclusion on the requisite facts which had to be found before he ordered the petitioners recognition to be cancelled. The Registrar consequently failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him. The Industrial Court had the opportunity to rectify that error in appeal but unfortunately the learned president failed to do so, may be because of his being impressed with the correctness of his conclusion contained in the order (Annexure D) in the earlier proceeding. Both these orders, have therefore, to be quashed. ( 7. ) CONSEQUENTLY, this petition is allowed and the orders (Annexures E and F) passed by the Registrar Representative Unions and the Industrial Court respectively are hereby quashed. The case shall now go back to the Registrar (Respondent No. 2) for deciding it afresh in accordance with law adverting to the observations made by us herein. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. The outstanding amount to security deposit shall be refunded to the petitioner. Petition allowed.