The main legal point established in the judgment is the invalidity of the election held before the formation of SECRMU and the lack of evidence supporting the first respondent's membership in SECRMU.

( 1 ) THIS is another instance of a Trade Union rivalry brought to the fore and landed in this court for judicial review of the question i. e. , between the warring groups, which group, whether the group headed by the petitioners or the group headed by the first respondent are legally elected office bearers of the trade union concerned. The facts of the case loudly speak and highlight how ambition and chicanery on the part of the concerned tradesman to capture the power of trade union, by hook or crook, threw out all democratic norms which should govern election of the office bearers of the trade union thereby doing great injustice to the trade union movement in the industry and failing to protect the legitimate interest and rights of the members of the trade union.

( 2 ) THIS writ petition is directed against the award of the State Industrial Court, chhattisgarh, Raipur (for short "the Industrial court") dated December 20, 2005 , passed in reference case No. 09/i. T. U. Act/i/2004, whereby and whereunder holding that the election of the petitioner No. 1 and petitioner no. 2 as General Secretary and President of south East Central Railway Men's Union (for short "secrmu") as illegal and that the first respondent herein is the lawful General secretary of SECRMU and entrusting the management of SECRMU to the first respondent and permitting him to hold fresh election to elect the office bearers of SECRMU.

( 3 ) THE background facts leading to filing of the writ petition, in brief, are as follows: initially, there was only one union in the name and style of South Eastern Railway Men's union (for short "sermu" ). There was reorganization of Railway Zones, as a consequence of which SERMU was bifurcated and SECRMU came into existence. SERMU was a Trade Unions Act, 1926 (for short "the act" ). Before formation of SECRMU, all the members of SECRMU were the members of sermu. With the decision of formation of new zones, the then General Secretary of sermu, namely, Mr. J. M. Bishwas wrote a letter to the Registrar of the Trade Unions, the second respondent herein, seeking permission to form new unions for the new zones, including one at Bilaspur. Out of those persons who Intended to go with the new union, a list of proposed office bearers of the proposed union was prepared with a view to getting the registration of the new union done and also getting the elections done subsequent thereto. In the proposed body, petitioner No. 1 was the working President, respondent No. 1 was the general Secretary and Mr. J. M. Bishwas was the President. Mr. J. M. Bishwas died on january 30, 2003. According to the petitioners, after the death of Mr. J. M. Bishwas, petitioner no. 1 became the President. At this stage itself, it is relevant to notice that according to both the contesting parties, on July 11, 2002 the secrmu was not in existence and according to Shri. Manindra Shrivastava, learned senior counsel for the first respondent, the formation of SECRMU was only in the pipeline that is to say in contemplation of the formation of new union. Furthermore, it also needs to be noticed at this stage itself that the Railway Board ordered reorganization of the unions only on august 8, 2002. After the Railway Board directed reorganization of the Unions on august 8, 2002, the then General Secretary of sermu, Mr. J. M. Bishwas wrote a letter to the Registrar of Trade Unions seeking permission for formation of new unions for the new zones including one at Bilaspur. On november 21, 2002 SECRMU was registered and its constitution was approved. According to the petitioners, the new union SECRMU came into existence and started functioning w. e. f. April 1, 2003.

( 4 ) ACCORDING to the petitioners, the body of proposed office bearers formed in the meeting held on July 11, 2002 was only a temporary body formed for the purpose of registration of the union and conducting elections, but, the first respondent did not conduct the election and continued to function as General