Labour Court Revokes Cancellation of BOI Officers’ Organisation Registration in Rajasthan
The cancellation order of the Bank of India Officers’ Organisation’s registration has been revoked in Rajasthan. Earlier, the registration was cancelled by the Hon’ble Additional Labour Commissioner & Registrar of Trade Unions, Rajasthan, Jaipur. In this article, we will understand the whole story.
Why was registration cancelled?
A few Officers – Ms. Priyanka Meena (D/o Shri Keshariya Lal Meena), Manager; Shri Dhananjay Kawat (S/o Shri Surgyan Meena), Senior Manager; and Shri Mahendra Sattavan (S/o Shri Mangal Ram Meena), Senior Manager (collectively referred to as “the complainants”) submitted an application dated 29.12.2025.
Through this application, they requested cancellation of the registration of BOI Officers Organization, Rajasthan (BORAJ) (referred to as “the registered union”), whose office is located at C-13 Ojha Ji Ka Bada, near Nehru Garden, Gandhi Nagar Mode, Jaipur, under Section 10 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926.
The complainants mentioned the following reasons for cancellation of registration:
- At the time of registration, the union declared that there were 493 officers in the institution and 56 members in the union. However, in reality, around 680 officers were working in Rajasthan. Many of the 56 members were neither actual members nor office bearers. One complainant, Shri Dhananjay Kawat, was actually a member of another organization.
- The union wrongly showed 493 officers in its application, whereas the actual number was around 680, making the information false.
- Out of the 7 authorized members who submitted the application, some persons (like Anil Kumar Meena, Sushil Kumar Meena, Rajesh Rampal Meena, Puran Meena, Suman Karan) were neither members nor authorized at that time.
- The union was registered at the Rajasthan level, whereas the organization operates across India. There were more than 27,000 officers in India, and over 24,000 at the time of registration. Therefore, the union did not have sufficient membership either at present or at the time of registration/amendment (07.02.2022).
- A general meeting dated 30.01.2022 claimed attendance of 40 officers, but many of them were not members. Complainant Shri Mahendra Sattavan was neither a member nor present in that meeting.
- During the formation meeting on 27.11.2021, names and signatures of 41 members were shown. However, complainant Ms. Priyanka Meena was not present in any such meeting, and her signatures were found to be forged.
- The union mentioned its registered office at Bank of India premises (Star House, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur), but no permission or NOC was taken from the bank management. This violated Section 5(1)(b) of the Act.
Proceedings and Findings
The union was given opportunities to present its case through notices dated 06.01.2026 and 13.03.2026. However, no representative appeared and no reply was submitted. After examining documents, statements, and evidence, the authority found that:
- False information was given during registration
- Membership details were incorrect
- Unauthorized persons were shown as members
- Fake signatures were used
- Proper permission for office was not taken
Based on the above findings, it was proved that the registration of the union (Registration No. RTU/01/2022 dated 06.01.2022) was obtained through misrepresentation and fraud. Therefore, using the powers under Section 10(b) of the Trade Unions Act, 1926, the registration of BOI Officers Organization, Rajasthan (BORAJ) was cancelled.
What happened Next?
Bank of India Officers Organisation (BOIOO) approached the Labour Court in Jaipur. BOIOO said that a trade union named BOI Officers Organization, Rajasthan (BORAJ) was registered on 06.01.2022, but soon it was renamed to BOIOO on 07.02.2022. Thus, the trade union BORAJ is not in existence. Only BOIOO is in existence.
The representative stated that the authorities cancelled the license of a trade union that was not even in existence. Moreover, BOIOO said that even if their representatives could not attend the hearing at the office of the Additional Labour Commissioner, they should have been given the chance to present their case. Cancellation of a non-existent trade union shows the misuse of institutional power.
After the hearing, the Labour Court set aside the earlier order and directed an inquiry into the case to ascertain the actual facts. The court also ordered the transfer of the Additional Labour Commissioner until the inquiry is completed.
