The Registrar of Trade Unions cannot impose restrictions contrary to the Trade Unions Act, allowing retired employees to serve as office bearers within stipulated limits.

Judgment :

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.

1. The writ application has been preferred challenging the notice dated 08.04.2025 and the communication dated 07.05.2025 and 29.05.2025 issued by the Registrar of Trade Unions, West Bengal.

2. The petitioners‟ case is that the petitioner no.1 is a trade union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. The petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are elected Office-bearers of the petitioner trade union and are citizens of India. The petitioner no.2 is a serving employee of CESC Ltd. and the petitioner no.3 is a retired employee of CESC Ltd.

3. On the basis of an order passed by this Hon'ble Court on 28.2.2024 in W.P.A. 4810 of 2024 (Calcutta Electric Supply Workmen's Union & Anr. -vs- State of West Bengal & Ors.) the petitioner trade union was recognized as a sole bargaining agent by the Registrar of Trade Unions through a Certificate dated 1.3.2024.

4. The union has its Executive Committee to administer all affairs of the union subject to the control of the General Body of members.

5. The petitioners‟ further state that petitioner union has been functioning for a period of about thirty two years and historically and by practice, some of its Office-bearers have been retired employees of CESC Ltd. by reason of expression of the democratic will of the members. The petitioner union presently has a strength of 3905 members. The membership strength and the office-bearers elected has always been in accordance with the provisions of the Trade Unions Act, 1926. The election of office-bearers has been duly made in accordance with the provisions of the Rules and Regulations of the trade union, and as per law.

6. On 8^th April, 2025, the respondent no.2 issued a notice observing that a person shall cease to remain in the post of or be disqualified for being elected or nominated as or for being, where the registered trade union belongs to organized sector, a Secretary or a Treasurer of the Executive Committee, or the post of the Chief Executive Officer or the Chief Financial Officer by whatever name called, if he is not in employment. The said notice was not widely circulated and is evidently an inter-departmental notice.

7. The petitioners caused an inquiry to be made in relation to the purported allegations made in the so-called representation and it came to revelation that many of the signatures contained in the purported representation had been forged. Accordingly, many employees complained to the Officer-in-Charge of Hare Street Police Station through letter dated 20.5.2025. The said letter was signed by 54 employees contending that their signatures had been forged.

8. On 22.5.2025, the petitioners also intimated the respondent no.2 about the falsity of the purported complaint which had caused the respondent no.2 to call for an Action Taken Report from the union.

9. On 2.6.2025, the petitioners received a communication dated 29.5.2025 from the Registrar of Trade Unions seeking to negate the criminal propensity in the act of making complaint.

10. That till today no other trade union under the jurisdiction of the respondent no. 2 has received a similar notice seeking to enforce the notice dated 08.04.2025.

11. Hence the writ applications on the ground:-

That the respondent no. 2, the Registrar of Trade Union has no jurisdiction to issue the notice dated 08.04.2025 as he has no authority to alter with any provision of Section 6 and Section 22 of the Trade Unions Act, 19