Back
2015 Supreme(Jhk) 256
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J.
Telco Workers Union - Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 6869 of 2012
Decided on : 06.02.2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. K.N. Choubey, Mr. V.P. Singh, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Mrs. Rashmi Kumari,
For the Respondents:Mr. Ajit Kumar, A.A.G. Mr. Saket Upadhyay, J.C. to A.A.G. Mr. Syed Ramiz Zafar, Advocate Mr. Ananda Sen, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Registrar, Trade Unions has no jurisdiction to adjudicate interse disputes between parties, as per the Trade Unions Act.
Headnote:
Trade Unions Act - Jurisdiction of Registrar, Trade Unions - Sections 8, 10 - The court held that the Registrar, Trade Unions has no jurisdiction to adjudicate interse dispute between the parties and quashed the impugned order dated 16.06.2012.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Telco Workers Union, sought quashing of an order refusing to enter the name of elected office bearers in Form-B register. The court found that the Registrar, Trade Unions had no jurisdiction to decide the interse dispute between the parties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Registrar, Trade Unions lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute and held the impugned order dated 16.06.2012 as null and void.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Registrar, Trade Unions had the authority to adjudicate interse dispute between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Trade Unions Act, specifically Sections 8 and 10, and previous judgments to establish that the Registrar, Trade Unions lacked jurisdiction to decide interse disputes between parties.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order dated 16.06.2012, thereby disposing of the related application.
I.A. No. 903 of 2014
This application has been filed seeking intervention in the writ petition.
The learned counsel for the intervenors submits that the proposed intervenors are the members of Telco Workers Union and at their instance the proceeding before the Registrar, Trade Unions was initiated.
In view of the reasons stated in the application, I.A. No. 903 of 2014 is allowed.
I.A. No. 891 of 2014
This application has been filed seeking intervention in the writ petition.
From the application it does not appear that the proposed intervenor was a party in the proceeding before the Registrar, Trade Unions.
I find no reason to entertain the present application and accordingly, it is dismissed.
I.A. No. 1823 of 2014
This application has been filed seeking intervention in the writ petition.
From the application it does not appear that the proposed intervenors were party in the proceeding before the Registrar, Trade Unions and hence, this application is dismissed.
W.P.(C) No. 6869 of 2012
Seeking quashing of order dated 16.06.2012 whereby the respondent no. 2 Labour Commissioner-cum-Registrar, Trade Unions refused to enter the name of duly elected office bearers of the Tata Workers Union for the period of 2012-14 in Form-B register, the present writ petition has been filed.
2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are summarised thus;
The petitioner Telco Workers Union is a Trade Union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 which represents the cause of employees in Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Limited (now Tata Motors Limited). The petitioner-Union has a registered constitution for election of the Executive Committee of the petitioner-Union. For the 2008-10 election, one A.K. Pandey filed a Writ Petition being W.P.(L) No. 556 of 2008 which was disposed of vide order dated 10.03.2008 by this Court granting liberty to the said A.K. Pandey to file a representation with respect to his grievance regarding proposed election. In the meantime, the said A.K. Pandey was discharged from service with effect from 26.08.2008. The said A.K. Pandey also filed a title suit bearing Title Suit No. 134 of 2008 in the Court of Munsif at Jamshedpur against the elected General Secretary, Treasurer etc. seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining them from acting as members of Telco Workers Union. An injunction petition was also filed in Title Suit No. 134 of 2008 which was dismissed vide order dated 19.12.2009. In view of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(L) No. 556 of 2008, the respondent no. 2 passed an order dated 10.02.2010 that is, about more than 20 months after the direction issued by this Court. By order dated 10.02.2010, the respondent no. 2 refused to enter the name of office bearers in Form-B register and directed holding for fresh election. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 947 of 2010 which was allowed vide order dated 30.04.2010, quashing a part of order dated 10.02.2010 whereby, fresh elections were directed to be held within 40 days. In so far as, other disputes are concerned, this Court held that the same may be adjudicated in the pending civil suit. Thereafter, certain amendments in the constitution of the petitioner-Union were made which were approved in the General Body Meeting held on 07.11.2010. In the meantime, on certain complaints received by respondent no. 2, the proposed election on 01.11.2010 was stayed. The complainants led by the said A.K. Pandey and one Arun Kumar Singh raised objection to the procedure adopted for formation of the Executive Committee. After receiving report from the Deputy Labour Commissioner, the respondent no. 2Labour Commissioner-cum-Registrar, Trade Unions vide order dated 09.04.2011 held the amendments valid and ordered registration of the same. A further direction was issued for holding election in a free and fair manner. Thereafter, General Body Meeting was called on 21.04.2011 for finalising the rul
