The Registrar, Trade Unions, has no jurisdiction to adjudicate on the validity of elections or to direct the office bearers to hold election or nominate his nominee to supervise the election.

N. Pandey, J.

1. Petitioner No.1 in this application, claiming to be the General Secretary of Bokaro Steel Workers Union, has prayed for quashing the direction contained in communication dated January 11 1996 (Annexure-5) addressed to the Managing Director, Steel Authority of India, Bokaro Steel City with a copy to Shri S. C. L. Shrivastava (respondent No.4 ). By the impugned communication, Additional Registrar, Trade Union had informed that in view of the decision in T. S.120 of 1990 and order of this Court in C. W. J. C. No.6834 of 1994, the election of the Union held on August 5, 1987 was found valid. Besides the aforesaid, names of office bearers including Shri S. C. L Shrivastava (respondent No.4) as General Secretary was also mentioned with a request to hold a fresh election of the office bearers. The communication further shows although Shri Bindeshwari Dubey, Shri P. N. Tripathy and Shri A. K. Tripathy, were dead, but their names were mentioned as Executive President, and Vice President, respectively. But the learned Additional Registrar has failed to disclose the source of his power in issuing such directives to the authorities.

2. From the materials brought on record, it would appear that each of the rival factions -one led by the writ petitioner and the other by Shri Shrivastava (respondent No.4) have been fighting litigations to establish their claim. But having regard to the limited question raised in this case, I need not go into the details of rival claims for the simple reason that this Court while exercising a writ jurisdiction should not undertake to adjudicate on the merits of conflicting claims involving disputed facts to find out whether elections conducted by the rival factions were valid. It has also been settled through judicial verdicts that in absence of any adjudicatory power to the Registrar, Trade Union, it is the civil Court alone which is. competent to decide the rival claim of the office bearers of the Union regarding election.

3. It appears from the facts on record that an election of the office bearers was held on August 24, 1990 of which M/s. Bindeshwari Dubey and P. N. Tripathy (since deceased) were elected as President and General Secretary, respectively. The intimation in this regard was also given to the Registrar, Trade Unions as required under Sec.28 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (hereinafter to be called the Act ). The said election was however, challenged by respondent No.4 Mr. Srivastava in Title Suit No.120 of 1990 before the Civil Court. According to him, in an election held on August 5, 1987 he was elected as Joint General Secretary and similar was the position when another election took place on October 24, 1989. The next election, therefore, as per the bye-laws, was required to be held after two years, but as alleged late Sri Tripathy claiming himself as General Secretary, got the election conducted on August 24, 1990. The suit was contested by the parties and ultimately the civil Court by the judgment dated March 1, 1995 held that the elections either held on October 24, 1989 or on August 24, 1990 were illegal and invalid.

4. The case of the petitioner is since the Registrar, Trade Unions after holding enquiry had already recognised the office bearers as elected on October 24, 1989 vide his letter dated September 15, 1990 (Annexure-1), therefore, after the expiry of the period of two years, another election was conducted on May 28, 1992 and the result thereof was also communicated by the then General Secretary late P. N. Tripathi to all concerned on May 31, 1992 vide Annexure 3.

5. But it is alleged that the Registrar, Trade Unions, unnecessarily carried out a protracted enquiry and finally by order dated July 29, 1994 declared the said Union illegal with a direction to the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Bokaro, as his nominee to get the election conducted afresh. The above order was ultimately challenged in C. W. J. C. No.6834 of 1994 and this Court having heard both the