ORDER
P.V. Dixit, C.J.
1. By this application under Article. 226 and 227 of the Constitution the petitioner seeks a direction to the industrial court commanding it to entertain and dispose of an appeal which the petitioner had filed under Section 11 of the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926, against an order of the Registrar cancelling the registration of a trade union of which the petitioner claims to be the president.
2. This application must be granted. The industrial court rejected the petitioner's appeal on the ground that under Section 11 of the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926, no appeal lay to the industrial court against an order of the Registrar cancelling the certificate of a trade union. In reaching this conclusion the president of the industrial court altogether overlooked the fact that the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926, was amended by Madhya Pradesh Act 28 of 1960, in its application to Madhya Pradesh. Section 3 of the Indian Trade Unions (Madhya Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1960 (Madhya Pradesh Act 28 of 1960), substituted a new section for Section 11 of the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926. The substituted Section 11(1) so far as it is material here is as follows :
11. Appeal.--(1) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Registrar-
(a) refusing to register a trade union; or
(b) withdrawing or cancelling a certificate or registration;
may within thirty days from the communication of such order to the trade union concerned, appeal to the industrial court whose decision shall be final : * * *
Section 2 of the amendment Act inserted in the principal Act definition, of 'industrial court.' According to that definition, 'Industrial court' has the same meaning which is assigned to it in the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960. These local amendments made in the Indian Trade Union Act, 1926, are clear enough to show that the appeal filed by the petitioner in the industrial court which is constituted under the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960, against the order of the Registrar cancelling the registration of the union was filed in the competent Court. The industrial court, therefore, erred in rejecting the appeal on the ground that it was incompetent.
3. For these reasons, this petition is allowed. The decision dated 9 February 1966 of the industrial court is quashed and that Courtis directed to entertain the appeal preferred by the petitioner and to dispose it of in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs. The outstanding amount of the security deposit shall be refunded to the petitioner.