The civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit for injunction to restrain the registration of a trade union. The Trade Unions Act, 1926 provides a full-fledged mechanism for the registration of trade unions, including the procedure for filing an application, the requirements for registration, and the grounds for cancellation of registration.

Mohammad Rafiq, J.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 13.03.2014 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge No.1, Behror, Alwar by which appeal of the petitioners against the order dated 24.07.2013 passed by Civil Judge (JD) Behror, District Alwar has been dismissed. The Civil Judge by the aforesaid order dated 24.07.2013 allowed the application under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 CPC for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiff-respondents nos.1 to 4 in the civil suit filed by them.

2. Grievance of the petitioners is that a suit for permanent injunction along with an application for temporary injunction was preferred by the respondent nos.1 to 4 to the effect that the petitioners and other workers have allegedly in forged manner formed a trade union and intended to get it registered before the Registrar. The learned trial court without going into the question of maintainability of the suit by virtue of bar contained in Section 18 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 allowed the application for temporary injunction of the respondent nos.1 to 4 and restrained them to persuade the trade union activities in flagrant violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and also restrained the Registrar, Trade Unions to register the trade union of the petitioners and other workers. Petitioners aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 24.07.2013 preferred an appeal before the appellate court. The appellate court by impugned order dated 13.03.2014 dismissed the appeal without going into the factual aspects, preliminary objections and the statutory provisions enshrined in Constitution of India and Trade Unions Act, 1926.

3. Shri Yogesh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 provides that 10% of the members/workmen of any factory can form the trade union and the Trade Unions Act, 1926 does not provide for any remedy to the plaintiffs to object for registration of fresh trade union. It is contended that 131 members of the petitioners' trade union attended the meeting and passed the resolution for formation of trade union and this strength is more than 20% of the total workmen presently working in the factory of respondent no. 6. Thus petitioners cannot be retrained to form the trade union as per Rules.

4. Learned counsel submitted that the defendant respondents have failed to produce the copy of the Rules of constitution of Trade Union, their application for temporary injunction is therefore defective and faulty. Learned counsel further argued that formation of a Trade Union is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(c), which cannot be violated by any court, particularly the civil court, which has not even jurisdiction to entertain the suit as well as application for temporary injunction.

5. It is contended that no civil suit can be entertained by the civil courts with respect of the dispute arising between the different trade unions and despite preliminary objection raised by the petitioners in the reply to the application itself, thus entertaining such an application for temporary injunction by the trial court is not justified.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that if any dispute arises between management and workers, workers and workers and employee and employers then the same shall be considered as `industrial dispute' under Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and therefore the civil suit was not within the ambit of jurisdiction of the learned trial court.

7. It is further contended that the management respondents on 17.10.2012 illegally retrenched the services of all the workers, who became member of the trade union and thereafter even in the conciliation proceedings, the management agreed to take back only 173 workers on the roll and rest of the 250 workers were not taken back in service. This very fact established the analogy that respondent nos.1 to 4 and the managemen