Back
1973 Supreme(AP) 47
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : GOPALRAO EKBOLE, V.MADHAVA RAO
Kama Rao - Appellant
Versus
Deputy Registrar of Trade Respondents unions, Guntur Region, Guntur - Respondent
Decided On : 03-27-73
The Deputy Registrar of Trade Unions does not have jurisdiction to decide election disputes, and any order passed by him in this regard is bad in law.
Headnote:
TRADE UNIONS ACT, 1926 - SECTION 8, 21-A, 22, 28, 31, 32, 33 - ELECTION DISPUTE - JURISDICTION OF DEPUTY REGISTRAR - ANCILLARY ADMINISTRATIVE ENQUIRY - SCOPE AND LIMITS - WRIT OF CERTIORARI - ISSUANCE.
Fact of the Case:
A dispute arose between two rival groups within a registered trade union, each claiming to have been elected as office bearers for the ensuing year. The Deputy Registrar of Trade Unions, acting on an application filed by one of the groups, registered the matter as an election dispute and conducted an enquiry, culminating in an order declaring the election of the rival group as valid. The petitioner, belonging to the other group, challenged the validity of this order by filing a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Deputy Registrar had no jurisdiction to decide election disputes and that the order passed by him was therefore bad in law. The court further held that the Deputy Registrar's enquiry could not be characterized as an ancillary administrative enquiry conducted for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the Trade Unions Act, 1926.
Issues: 1. Whether the Deputy Registrar of Trade Unions had jurisdiction to decide election disputes. 2. Whether the Deputy Registrar's enquiry could be considered as an ancillary administrative enquiry conducted for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the Trade Unions Act, 1926.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Trade Unions Act, 1926, did not confer any specific power on the Deputy Registrar to decide election disputes. 2. The court held that the Deputy Registrar's enquiry was not an ancillary administrative enquiry conducted for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the Act, as it was not necessary for the Deputy Registrar to conduct such an enquiry in order to discharge his statutory duties.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned judge, and allowed the writ petition. The court directed the issue of a writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned order of the Deputy Registrar.
( 2 ) A general body meeting of the Union for the purpose of election of the new office bearers for the year 1970-71 was held in the premises of the Union office on 29-12-1970. The petitioner contended that he has been re-elected as President of the Union unanimously. Certain other persons were elected as Vice Presidents, general Secretary, Assistant Secretary and Treasurer.
( 3 ) THE second respondent although aware of the election contended that earlier at a meeting held on 16-12-1970, he was elected as president of the Union. He disputed the validity of the election alleged to have been held on 29-12- 70.
( 4 ) THE second respondent filed an application alleging inter alia that a General Body meeting was validly held on 16-12-1970 at which he was elected as the President. He also disputed the validity of the election alleged to have taken place on 29-12-1970 at which the petitioner and others were elected as the office bearers of the union. This petition was filed with the Deputy Registrar of Trade unions, Guntur Region, Guntur.
( 5 ) THE first respondent, that is the Deputy Registrar registered the election petition as election dispute and numbered it as T. U. E. No. 1 of 1971. He issued notice to the petitioner to appear before him and file a reply and defend. In view of the positions held by the deputy Registrar, the petitioner appeared before him and filed a reply. He objected in his reply that the Deputy Registrar has no jurisdiction to conduct an enquiry in election disputes and decide the same. In spite of this petition, the Deputy Registrar pissed an order on 15-4-1971, the substance of which was the elections held on 29-12-1970 were not in accordance with the rules of the Union and that the group consisting of applicants led by Sri I. Ranganayakulu, r-2 have been validly elected in the elections held on 16-12-1970. It was to challenge the validity of this order that the writ petition out of which this appeal arises was filed.
( 6 ) THE main contention before the learned single Judge was that the Deputy Registrar had no jurisdiction to decide election disputes and therefore the order was bad in Law. The learned Judge agreed that there was no specific provision of law enabling the Deputy Registrar to decide election disputes. He, however found that the Registrar was entitled to decide whether any particular representatives of the Union were lawfully elected representatives of the Union or not for the purpose of enforcement of the TRADE UNIONS ACT, 1926: Reference to the Industrial Disputes Act in the judgment seems to be a mistake.
( 7 ) IN this appeal, the principal contention of Sri K. Narasimham, the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Deputy Registrar had not commenced the proceedings suo motu but he expressly treated the petition filed by the second respondent as an election dispute, enquired it as such and gave an order. It could not therefore be held that it was an ancillary administrative enquiry held by the Deputy registrar for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the Act.
( 8 ) IN order to appreciate the merits of this contention, it becomes necessary to keep in view certain provisions of the Act. The main object of the Act is to provide for the registration of Trade Unions and in certain respects to define the law relating to registered trade Unions. Section 8 of the Act relates to registration. It enjoins that the Registrar, on being satisfied that the Trade Union has complied with all the requirements of the Act
