Judgment :- S. M. ABDUL WAHAB, J. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred against the proceedings No. Aa2/Pa. Le. No. 145/95, dated January 21, 1997 and issued on June 9, 1998 by the Additional Registrar-II of Trade Unions and Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II, D.M.S. Compound, Teynampet, Chennai-6. 2. The impugned order has been passed by the first respondent cancelling the registration of the Neyveli National Workers Union, the first appellant herein. 3. The case of the first appellant is that the first appellant union was registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, affiliated to Indian National Trade Union Congress (for short 'IN-TUC') having its head office at G. R. Bhawan, II Floor, No. 45, Royapettah High Road, Chennai-14. The Union was started with the object of securing rights, privileges and impunities and other protection to its in members and also to maintain Industrial peace in the Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, a Government of India undertaking. The appellant's Union branch is situated at No. D-12, Mahathma Gandhi Road, Block No. 24, Neyveli-1. The union was registered in the year 1976. After complying with the requirements and the provisions of the Trade Unions Act, a certificate was issued with Registration No.286/SAT. The Union is affiliated to National Trade Union called Indian National Trade Union Congress and the affiliation Number is 5264. 4. The Union submitted the annual report of 1996 in Form 'E'. Even though the annual report was submitted in the year 1996 in Form 'E', no communication was received by the Union from the first respondent. No notice was issued to the Union for the non-compliance of the provisions of the Act. It is further stated that when the petitioner approached the first respondent on June 9, 1998, the first respondent issued an order dated January 21, 1997. In the order it is stated that the petitioner failed to submit the annual report for the years 1992 to 1995. Hence, the first respondent cancelled the registration of the petitioner's union under Section28 of the Trade Unions Act read with Regulation of the Tamil Nadu Regulations. It is further stated that the registration was cancelled under Section10 of the Trade Unions Act. According to the petitioner, the report under Form E was sent in 1996. Therefore, the cancellation is illegal. 5. It is further stated that the registration was cancelled under Section10 of the Trade Unions Act. According to the petitioner, the report under Form E was sent in 1996. Therefore, the cancellation is illegal. 5. The appellant impleaded the Additional Registrar-11 of Trade Unions and Deputy Commissioner of Labour-11, Chennai-6, as the first respondent and the Management of Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited as the second respondent. 6. Another Union namely, Neyveli National Workers and Staff Union, represented by its President, D. Muthu Reddiar, has filed C.M.P. 45 No. 11065 of 1998 for impleading their Union as a party, third respondent in the appeal and stay petition. 7. In the affidavit filed in support of the said petition D. Muthu Reddiar has alleged that after the cancellation of the registration of the Neyveli National Workers Union (Registration No. 286/SAT) another Union was formed by his men and got the new Registration No.43/SAV. The members of the other Union have joined the new Union. The new Union is also affiliated to the Tamil Nadu Indian National Trade Union Congress, New Delhi. 8. It is further stated that the General Secretary of the Neyveli National Workers Union Mr. G. Kalan, is not the General Secretary of the Indian National Trade Union Congress. On the other hand P. L. Subbiah is the Secretary. Mr. P. L. Subbiah has obtained injunction against the said G. Kalan from interfering with the affairs of Indian National Trade Union Congress, Tamil Nadu. Radhakrishnan is not the General Secretary of the Neyveli National, Workers' Union. He has no legal and valid right and he has no locus stands to represent the Union. Registration of the Union was cancelled as early as on January 27, 1997. S. Radhakrishnan and G. Kalan have colluded together and, they cannot represent the Union. Neyveli National Workers Union has no head office at Chennai. Hence, the appeal is not maintainable under Section 11(i)(A) of the Trade Unions Act, 1926. Hence, the appeal cannot he filed in the High Court. By misrepresentation only the appeal has been filed. The provisions of Section 11(1)(a) of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 is not applicable. The cancellation order is dated January 21, 1996. It is false to state that the appellant came to know of the order only on June 9, 1998. As Mr. By misrepresentation only the appeal has been filed. The provisions of Section 11(1)(a) of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 is not applicable. The cancellation order is dated January 21, 1996. It is false to state that the appellant came to know of the order only on June 9, 1998. As Mr. S. Radhakrishnan, was expelled from the membership of the Union in the General Body held on May 31, 1998, he is not entitled to maintain the appeal. Therefore, to vacate the order of stay the petitioner's Union must be added as a party in the appeal. 9. Even though the Respondents 1 and 2 in the appeal were served, they have not entered appearance. 10. Even though the case can be decided on the facts placed before the Court and there is no necessity for impleading the Neyveli National 50 Workers and Staff Union, I am allowing the petition for impleading with the only object of finding out the fact as the Respondents 1 and 2 have remained exparte. In fact, while arguing the application for impleading, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner was allowed to argue the case on merits. According to the learned Senior Counsel for the impleaded party, the appeal is not maintainable on three grounds. One is that the appellant has no locus stands to maintain the appeal; secondly, the appeal is not maintainable in the High Court; and thirdly, even though there is a specific provision for prosecution for not sending the statements as required under Sec. 10 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926, the certificate of registration can he cancelled. 11. The learned Senior Counsel Thiru. R. Krishnamoorthy, appearing on behalf of the counsel for the petitioners contended that as per Sec. 31 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926, for failure to submit the returns, the Office Bearers are punishable with fine, which may extend to five rupees. Therefore, the respondents ought to taken action as per that Section. They cannot cancel the registration. Sec. 10 of the Act 2., provides for cancellation of the registration. Therefore, the respondents ought to taken action as per that Section. They cannot cancel the registration. Sec. 10 of the Act 2., provides for cancellation of the registration. The circumstances under which such cancellation can be effected are enumerated in the said Sec. 10(b) of the Act is relevant for the aforesaid purpose, which reads thus : "(b) if the Registrar is satisfied that the certificate has been obtained by fraud or mistake, or that the Trade Union has ceased to exist or has wilfully and after notice from the Registrar contravened any provision of this Act or allowed any rule to continue in force which is inconsistent with any such provision, or has rescinded any rule providing for any matter provision for which is required by Section 6." As per Sec. 10(b) of the Act, the Registrar can cancel the registration if the Trade Union ceased to exist or it contravened the provisions of the Act or allowed by any Rules to continue or has rescinded any Rule providing for any matter required by Section 6. 12. Now, we have to consider whether the appellant union has contravened any of the provisions and further the said contravention was willfully made after notice from the Registrar. The other circumstances under which the cancellation can he effected are allowing any rule to be in force, when such rule is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act or has rescinded any rule which rule has to be provided as per Sec. 6 of the Act. There cannot be any question of contravention of the aforesaid two grounds. Therefore, we have to find out whether there was a contravention of the provisions of the Act wilfully even after the notice from the Registrar. 13. No doubt Sec. 28 directs the sending of a general statement audited in the prescribed manner of all receipts and expenditure of every registered Trade Union during the year ending on December 31, next preceding such prescribed date, and of the assets and liabilities of the Trade Union. The general statement audited containing of receipts and expenditure and all the assets and liabilities should be sent before December 31, of every year. Therefore, if the statement is not sent definitely it will be a contravention of the provisions contained in the Act. The general statement audited containing of receipts and expenditure and all the assets and liabilities should be sent before December 31, of every year. Therefore, if the statement is not sent definitely it will be a contravention of the provisions contained in the Act. In the impugned order, I find that the annual return in Form was not sent for the years 1992 to 1995. It is also stated that the notices dated July 14, 1993, June 30, 1994 and November 1, 1995 in Form D sent to the appellant were returned as "the addressee was not found". It is also stated in the aforesaid notices that the appellant was directed to send the returns within two months and if they were not sent, 'the registration would be cancelled.Form D is extracted below : FORM D "Office of the Registrar of Trade Unions for the Presidency of Madras Place .......... Trade Unions Act, 1926 (XVI of 1926). Notice before withdrawal or cancellation of certificate of registration under Clause (b) of Section10 of the Act. .................... Trade Union. Register No. Notice is hereby given to the above mentioned Trade Union that it is the intention of the Registrar to proceed the date ...... 19, to withdraw (or cancel) the certificate of registration of the Trade Union, unless cause be shown to the contrary in the meantime. The ground of such proposed withdrawal (or cancellation) is that the certificate of registration has been obtained by fraud (or mistake), or that the Trade Union has ceased to exist or has wilfully and after notice from me violated the provisions of the above mentioned Act, or allowed its rule ................... to continue in force which inconsistent with the provisions of the Act or has rescinded its rule .................. providing for a matter provision for which is required by Section 6. (The facts should be briefly specified where practicable). (Signature) (Seal) Registrar. Dated day of 19 . The date entered here shall not be less than two months from the date of notice." 14. So from the facts mentioned above, two things are clear; (1) the notices in Form D sent to the appellants were not received and they were returned as "the addressee was not found"(2) the notices were sent for cancellation of the certificate and asking the appellant to give the reasons for not sending the returns. So from the facts mentioned above, two things are clear; (1) the notices in Form D sent to the appellants were not received and they were returned as "the addressee was not found"(2) the notices were sent for cancellation of the certificate and asking the appellant to give the reasons for not sending the returns. They are not the notices contemplated under Sec. 10(b) of the Act calling upon the appellant to comply with any of the provisions which the appellant contravened. Even though the impugned order states that the reasons for default should be intimated within two months, Form D does not contain such words. 15. As we have already seen, the cancellation of registration can be made under the conditions stated under Sec. 10 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926. But before action taken under See. 10 for cancellation of the registration, notice contemplated under Sec. 10 ought to have been sent informing the appellant about the contravention of any provisions and calling upon the appellant to comply with the provisions contravened. Such a notice has not been sent in this case. On the other hand, the notice sent was for withdrawal of the cancellation only, though Sec. 10(b) is mentioned in it. Even though Form D mentions Clause (b) of Sec. 10 of the Act, it is not in conformity with the requirements under See. 10(b) of the Act, because it is only to call upon the appellant to give the reasons for failure to send the returns and it is not for a direction to the appellant to comply with the provisions, which according to the first respondent, the appellant had contravened. No doubt, the Form has been adopted as per Regulation 9 of the Tamil Nadu Regulations under the Trade Unions Act. But Form D as aforesaid can be construed to be only a notice for failure to send the statement. If so, the Respondents 1 and 2 can only prosecute the Office Bearers as provided under Sec. 31 of the Act. 16. But Form D as aforesaid can be construed to be only a notice for failure to send the statement. If so, the Respondents 1 and 2 can only prosecute the Office Bearers as provided under Sec. 31 of the Act. 16. Therefore, even assuming that there was contravention of the provisions of the Act by the appellant, the cancellation of registration cannot be carried out in this particular case, because : (i) there was no notice as contemplated by Sec. 10(b) of the Act, calling upon die appellant to comply with the provisions of the Act contravened; (ii) the notices have not been served on the appellant as is found in the impugned order itself. As per the impugned order, the notices sent on July 14, 1993, June 30, 1994 and November 1, 1995 were returned with the endorsement "addressee not found". 17. This Court has to conclude that the notices dated July 14, 1993, June 30, 1994 and Ill November 1, 1995 were not in accordance with See. 10(b) of the Act, because the impugned order states that they were sent in Form D. 18. The first respondent has not entered appearance even though he was served. The file as not been produced in this Court. When we look at the affidavit filed in support of the petition for impleading in paragraph 5, the President of Neyveli National Workers Union, there is a statement that the notices of two months has been sent by the authorities. When the petitioners have stated that they have not received the notices and when it is also admitted in the impugned order itself that notices were not served and they were returned, the statement of the President cannot be accepted as true. The statement only indicates the bitter feelings that have been developed between the appellant's group and the opposite group, now sought to be impleaded as a party in this appeal, even assuming that the notices were sent to the proper address and yet they were not served on account of even in by the appellant. Therefore, the presumption can be that the notices have been served. Even then as I have already indicated, the notices sent were not in accordance with the provisions contained under See. 10(b) of the Act. 19. As per the learned Senior counsel Thiru. Therefore, the presumption can be that the notices have been served. Even then as I have already indicated, the notices sent were not in accordance with the provisions contained under See. 10(b) of the Act. 19. As per the learned Senior counsel Thiru. T. V. Ramanujan, there is a contravention of the provisions contained in the Act, when there is a failure on the part of the appellant to send the statement. No doubt, Section28 of the Act contemplates the sending of general statement etc. But Sec. 31 of the Act is a special provision, which governs the situation when there is a failure to send the statement. See. 10 of the Act contemplates general contravention of the provisions. Further it contemplates the situations where there is a wilful contravention and such wilful contravention must be after notice from the Registrar. But Sec. 31 of the Act contemplates punishment even for a mere failure to send the statement. Therefore, we have to take 4, it that Sec. 31 of the Act has been enacted specifically covering cases of failure to send statement. It is a special provision. 20. In short, the mere failure to send the statement is an offence under Sec. 31 of the Act and it is punishable with fine of Rs. 5/-. Hence, the indication is that for failure to send the statement, the authorities contemplated has to proceed only as per the provisions contained in the said Section. As it is well known principle of interpretation of law that the special provision contained in an enactment for a particular purpose, excludes the application of the general provision, governing a number of purposes which can also be applied to the said purpose. This principle is well established in the legal maxim specialia generalibus derogant and generalia specialibus non derogant (Special excludes the general and general does not exclude the special). If we construe the provisions contained in Sec. 31 of the Act as one in addition to the provisions contained in See. 10 of the Act, the provisions of Sec. 31 of the Act will become redundant. 21. When a penalty is provided for a particular offence in a statute, normally the legislation uses the word-without prejudice to the provisions contained hereinbefore or hereinafter, then only it can be taken that the special remedy, relief or punishment, can also be taken as an alternative one. 21. When a penalty is provided for a particular offence in a statute, normally the legislation uses the word-without prejudice to the provisions contained hereinbefore or hereinafter, then only it can be taken that the special remedy, relief or punishment, can also be taken as an alternative one. Sec. 31 of the Act is almost at the end of the enactment, but See. 10 is in the beginning of it. The latter provision providing for a special procedure for a particular offence should be taken to exclude the application of Sec. 10 of the Act, which also provides for punishment for noncompliance of the provisions contained in the enactment is 22. Further, under Sec. 10(b) of the Act, the punishment of cancellation is made on the satisfaction of the Registrar that the certificate of registration was obtained by fraud or mistake, to etc. Punishment is against all the members of the Union. But on the other hand, the punishment provided under Sec. 31 of the Act is for the office bearers in the default in submitting the returns. Because, they alone have to be punished when they failed to discharge their duty and the members of the Union or the entire body of the union cannot be punished. In short, Sec. 10 of the Act contemplates the contravention by the Union. So, the offence contemplated under 9 Sec. 10 of the Act relates to the offence of the Union, while Sec. 31 of the Act contemplates the offence of the Office Bearers. This distinction also must be kept in mind. That is why, Sec. 31 has been specially enacted for punishing the Office Bearers only. In that view also, the first respondent cannot seek to punish the entire 5 Union for the offences committed by the Office Bearers by invoking the provisions contained under See. 1 of the Act. 23. The next argument advanced by the counsel for the rival union is that the President, Thiru. S. Radhakrishnan has no locus stands to represent the Union. In his own affidavit, the President of the rival union D. Muthu Reddiar has stated as follows : "In fact, one Mr. P. Sundaramurthy, who claimed to be the President of Neyveli National Workers Union which was then bearing Reg. No. 286/SAT has already decided to withdraw the suit filed by him claiming to be the President. In his own affidavit, the President of the rival union D. Muthu Reddiar has stated as follows : "In fact, one Mr. P. Sundaramurthy, who claimed to be the President of Neyveli National Workers Union which was then bearing Reg. No. 286/SAT has already decided to withdraw the suit filed by him claiming to be the President. When he is withdrawing the suit, die question of Mr. S. Radhakrishnan claiming to be the General Secretary of Neyveli National Workers Union does not arise." In the light of the aforesaid admission that only when the suit is withdrawn as stated above, S. Radhakrishnan will cease to be the Generally Secretary of the Neyveli National Workers Union. The affidavit containing the aforesaid words have been sworn to on August 9, 1998. When the matter was argued before this Court also, no evidence was produced that the suit mentioned above has been already withdrawn. Therefore, there is no substance in the contention of the counsel for the rival union. 24. Similarly another point urged by the learned senior counsel Thiru. T. V. Ramanujan an is that the Union itself has ceased to exist and a new Union has been formed. In the affidavit mentioned above itself it has been admitted that a few members numbering 25 to 50 are misguided by S. Radhakrishnan and others and they are not representing all the members and they have no focus stall. That itself means that S. Radhakrishnan is functioning as a separate group with his supporters. In view of the above, it cannot be said that the appellants group have ceased to exist. 25. The next important point urged by the learned senior counsel for the rival union Thiru. T. V. Ramanujan, is that the appeal is not maintainable in this Court. According to the learned counsel, the first appellant has no head office at Madras. According to him, as per Section11 (1)(a) of the Act, only when the Read Office of the Trade Union is situated within the local limits of the Presidency town, the appeal can he filed in the High Court. His client's affidavit itself is an answer to this contention also. See. 11 of the Act reads as follows : 11. According to him, as per Section11 (1)(a) of the Act, only when the Read Office of the Trade Union is situated within the local limits of the Presidency town, the appeal can he filed in the High Court. His client's affidavit itself is an answer to this contention also. See. 11 of the Act reads as follows : 11. Appeal - (1) Any person aggrieved by any refusal of the Registrar to register a Trade Union or by the withdrawal or cancellation of a certificate of registration may, within such period as may be prescribed, appeal - (a) where the head office of the Trade Union is situated within the limits of a Presidency town to the High Court, or (b) where the head office is situated in any other area, to such Court, not inferior to the Court of an additional or Assistant Judge of a Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, as the (appropriate Government) may appoint in this behalf for that area. "26. The second appellant is Indian National Trade Union Congress represented by its General Secretary G. Kalan. The case of the first appellant is that the Union is affiliated with the second appellant and the Indian National Trade Union congress head office is situate at G. R. Bhawan, 11 Floor, No. 45, Royapettah High Road, Chennai-14. In the affidavit filed in support of the impleading petition it is stated that the Neyveli National Workers Union bearing Registration No. 286/SAT was affiliated to the Tamil Nadu Indian National Trade Union Congress and Indian National Trade Union Congress, New Delhi and after they registered the new Union under the name and style of Neyveli National Workers and Staff Union under Registration No. 43/SAV, and the have got themselves affiliated to the INTUC, Tamil Nadu and New Delhi and now the new Union had been recognised by the INTUC, Tamil Nadu and New Delhi under the new Registration No.43/SAV. It is further stated in paragraph 4 as follows :" The second appellant is shown as INTUC. INTUC is not a registered body. It is stated that one Mr. G. Kalan is representing as the General Secretary. I humbly submit that he is not the General Secretary. The General Secretary of the INTUC, Tamil Nadu is Mr. P. L. Subbiah. Mr. G. Kalan cannot represent INTUC. INTUC is not a registered body. It is stated that one Mr. G. Kalan is representing as the General Secretary. I humbly submit that he is not the General Secretary. The General Secretary of the INTUC, Tamil Nadu is Mr. P. L. Subbiah. Mr. G. Kalan cannot represent INTUC. He has no locus stands to show INTUC as second appellant in shell above C. M. A. There is already an order of injunction in the suit filed by Mr. P. L. Subbiah, General Secretary of INTUC, Tamil Nadu, that Mr. G. Kalan shall not interfere with the affairs of INTUC. The said order of in has been passed in unction Appln No. 231 and 233.195 in C.S. No. 354/ 95 (now transfer C.S. 777/97) may kindly .be read as part hereof. That order is still in force by directing to maintain "Status Quo" until further orders. The order of His Lordship dated December 10, 1996 passed in Appln. No. 3062/1996 and O.A. No. 5181 1996 in C.S. No. 564/1996 may also kindly be read as part hereof." Therefore, there is a dispute in the INTUC, Tamil Nadu also and the case is ending. It is also stated that there is an injunction against the previous General Secretary G. Kalan. 27. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the Neyveli National Workers Union bearing Registration No. 286/SAT was affiliated to the Tamil Nadu Indian National Trade Union Congress and Indian National Trade Union Congress, New Delhi. Thiru G. Kalan, was the General Secretary of INTUC, Tamil Nadu. However, a suit has been filed challenging his continuation as the General Secretary. Even though, originally an order of injunction was obtained against G. Kalan, restraining him not to interfere with the affairs of INTUC, Tamil Nadu. Subsequently, the injunction order was modified and now the parties are directed to maintain the status quo. Therefore, the rival groups are claiming to represent Tamil Nadu Indian National Trade Union Congress. The first appellant's group is supporting G. Kalan's group. While the impleading parties group is supporting P. L. Subbiah's group. The fact remains that both the groups claim that the are by affiliated to the INTUC, Tamil Nadu and that has to be settled only when the suit is disposed of. The first appellant's group is supporting G. Kalan's group. While the impleading parties group is supporting P. L. Subbiah's group. The fact remains that both the groups claim that the are by affiliated to the INTUC, Tamil Nadu and that has to be settled only when the suit is disposed of. Till there is a final adjudication in the suit, the claim of the first appellant that they are affiliated to the INTUC, Tamil Nadu, having its head office at Madras and therefore they are entitled to file the appeal in the High Court along with the second appellant, cannot be brushed aside as totally false. It is altogether a different matter, if by joining the first appellant/petitioner G. Kalan has failed to maintain the status quo. It is not a matter that has got to be decided in this case. So, this contention of the Senior counsel Thiru. T. Y. Ramanujan, also falls to the ground. 28. On a consideration of all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the appeal has to be allowed. Accordingly, it is allowed. Counsel fee of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees One thousand only) is to be paid by the impleaded respondent to the appellants. Consequently, C.M.P. No. 8271 is closed and C.M.P. No. 11065 of 1998 is allowed.