JUDGMENT M.K. Mukherjee, C.J. - Chheoki Depot Labour Union, a registered trade Union ('Union' for short), having its head office at Naini in the district of Allahabad, filed a writ petition before a learned Judge of this Court praying for a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Commandant of the Central Ordnance Depot, Chheoki, District Allahabad (Respondent No. 4 therein) and the other Respondents to continue to recognise it and for a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing an order dated June 27, 1990 passed by the Adjutant General, Army Head Quarters. New Delhi (Respondent No. 2 therein) and communicated to the Union through a letter dated July, 13, 1990 written by the Respondent No. 4, whereby the Union was de-recognised and all the facilities admissible to a recognised trade Union were stopped. 2. According to the Union, it was established as a Labour Union in the year 1949 and was registered under the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926, on August 20, 1949. It was affiliated to the National Federation of Defence Workers and the Ministry of Defence also recognised the Union in 1959 under Civilian Personnel Routine Orders (CPRO). In the year 1973 74 the Union was de-registered on its failure to submit annual returns but soon thereafter it got freshly registered with a new number 3961 on May 23, 1973. It contends that it had been availing of and enjoying the facilities of a recognised Union from the Respondent Military authorities till 1990 when certain demands raised by it in respect of certain employees of the Chheoki Depot were ignored and the impugned order was served. According to the Union, before passing the impugned order it was neither served with any show cause notice nor was the procedure laid down in the CPROs followed. 3. The Respondents contested the writ petition through a counter-affidavit filed by Brig. R.N. Batra, the Respondent No. 4. In the counter-affidavit it was stated that the Union was recognised by the Respondents but that recognition automatically lapsed when it was de-registered and that the new Union, which was formed in 1973, was not at all recognised as it failed to provide the Respondents with necessary particulars, which were required for recognition of the Union. Consequently, it was submitted on their behalf, no recognition was granted to the Union. Consequently, it was submitted on their behalf, no recognition was granted to the Union. According to the Respondents, it was not a case of de-recognition of the Union but of refusal of recognition due to its failure to furnish necessary particulars sought for. It was further contended by them that though in their letters the Respondents Nos. 2 and 4 had used the word 'de-recognition' and in the impugned letter dated July 13, 1990 it was stated the Chheoki Depot Labour Union (CDLU) has been derecognised", those Respondents had no authority to issue such communications as inherent powers to grant recognition/derecognition rested with the Ministry of Defence. It was, therefore, submitted on behalf of the Respondents that no cognizance of the impugned letter dated July, 13, 1990 should be taken. 4. After hearing the parties and considering the materials placed before him, the learned Judge held that the Union had been de-recognised without giving it an opportunity of being heard and therefore the action was bad in law. The learned Judge accordingly allowed the writ petition and granted the reliefs sought for. Hence this Special Appeal at the instance of the Respondents in the writ petition. 5. In the context of the respective cases of the parties the only question that falls for our determination is whether the Union was derecognised or it was not given, recognition afresh after it was newly registered, in the year 1973. However, before we proceed to consider this aspect (sic) matter it will be necessary for us to dispose of a preliminary point raised on behalf of the Army authorities as to the maintainability of the writ petition itself. 6. It was submitted on their, behal(sic) at the Trade Unions Act, 1926 ('Act' for short), under which Trade (sic) were registered, did not confer any statutory right upon a Union to claim recognition from an employer in whose establishment it had its (sic) it cast a corresponding obligation upon the employer to give recog(sic) such a Union. Consequently, it was submitted, the Union could not (sic) petition seeking a writ of mandamus to enforce their supposed right. 7. Consequently, it was submitted, the Union could not (sic) petition seeking a writ of mandamus to enforce their supposed right. 7. We might have persuaded ourselves to accept the above contention, notwithstanding that no such contention was raised before the learned Judge, but for the fact that the Army authorities have laid down Rules for recognition of the Unions of Workers in the Ministry of Defence Installations through the CPROs 63/59. These orders expressly lay down the mode of grant and continuance of recognition to workers' Unions as also the rights and obligations of the recognised Unions. Undisputely the Union was initially recognised by the Appellants in, accordance with these adminstrative orders and pursuant to such recognition they obtained the right to negotiate with the Army authorities regarding the grievance of the employees of the defence undertakings. If, therefore, the Union feels that their such right to negotiate has been illegally abridged or taken away it can certainly bring an action through a writ petition to enforce such right. The preliminary point raised on behalf of the Army authorities cannot therefore be accepted. 8. To answer the principal question as to whether it is a case of refusal -- to recognise or of derecognition of the Union, we have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties as also the missives exchanged between them, On perusal thereof we are constrained to say that the Army authorities have taken an indisciplined and contradictory stand. 9. On June 28, 1984 -- 11 years after the Union was registered afresh -- the Under Secretary to Government of India in the Ministry of Defence wrote a letter to the Secretary of the Union that if a copy of their constitution was not submitted by July 30, 1984, the Union would be derecognised. To explain away as to why the word 'derecognised' was used in the above letter the Army authorities have stated in paragraph 22 of their counter-affidavit that the above was inadvertently written and that the same word was thereafter repeated in the letter dated 15th April, 1986 and the orders dated 27th June, 1990 and 13th July, 1990. It is difficult to accept the contention of the Appellants that they have had been committing the selfsame mistake in all letters that followed. It is difficult to accept the contention of the Appellants that they have had been committing the selfsame mistake in all letters that followed. Besides the explanation so given, the Army authorities have taken the stand in paragraph 19 of their counter-affidavit that Respondents Nos. 2 and 4 (of the writ petition) -- the Appellants 2 and 4 before us -- had no authority whatsoever to issue the impugned order dated June 27, 1990 and letter dated July 13, 1990 as the inherent power to grant recognition/derecognition vested with the Ministry of Defence. The stand so taken by the Appellants is patently unsustainable and unfair firstly, because, the letter dated 28th June, 1984 was issued by the Ministry of Defence itself wherein a threat of derecognition was made for the first time and secondly because the Respondent No. 4 of the writ petition (Appellant No. 4 herein) specifically stated in the counter-affidavit that he was filing the same on behalf of all the Respondents, who includes Secretary to the Ministry of Defence. It is evident that to wriggle out of an embarrassing situation the Army authorities have gone even to the extent of disowning its officers. We are therefore in complete agreement with the learned Judge that the stand taken by the Army authorities was wholly untenable and that the Union was derecognised. As the CPROs of 1959 expressly lay down that recognition once granted cannot be withdrawn without sufficient cause and without first giving an opportunity to the Union concerned to represent against the proposed withdrawal and as admittedly no such opportunity was given, we must uphold the judgment of the learned Judge. 10. The appeal is therefore dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.