The court established the principle that a writ petition should not be entertained at the stage of issuance of show cause notice, unless there are rare and exceptional circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

RAJESH SHANKAR, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed for a declaration that the respondent No. 2 has no authority or jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 10 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act 1926’] except on an application of a Trade Union or suo-motu and hence exercising said power at the instance of any other person including a political person is not permitted under Section 10 of the Act, 1926. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondent No. 2 restraining him from exercising the power conferred under Section 10 of the Act, 1926, as on a complaint received from a person other than a Trade Union, the said respondent has illegally issued notice in Form-D expressing his intention to cancel/withdraw the registration of the petitioner-Trade Union, which is a registered body.

2. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner, submits that issuance of notice dated 15.07.2022 in Form-D (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) to the petitioner-Trade Union by the respondent No. 2 under proviso to Section 10 of the Act, 1926 read with Clause 6(2) of the Bihar Trade Unions Regulations, 1928 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulations, 1928’] is contrary to the power conferred to the said respondent under Section 10 of the Act, 1926. The respondent No. 2 can proceed to cancel the registration of a Trade Union either on an application of a Trade Union under the provisions of Section 10(a) of the Act, 1926 or by exercising power suo-motu as provided under Section 10(b) of the Act, 1926. However, the Registrar, Trade Union cannot initiate a proceeding for cancellation of registration on a complaint or application made by a third party (in the present case, a Member of Legislative Assembly). The said suo-motu power conferred to the Registrar, Trade Union under Section 10(b) of the Act, 1926 cannot be prompted by any other person as has happened in the present case. It is further submitted that initially a notice as contained in Letter No. 68 dated 18.01.2022 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) was issued to the petitioner by the Deputy Secretary, Office of the Labour Commissioner, Jharkhand, Ranchi, to which a reply was submitted by the petitioner on 24.01.2022 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) giving the complete details of the General Body Meetings of the petitioner-Trade Union held from time to time. However, the respondent No. 2 has issued the notice dated 15.07.2022 in Form-D completely ignoring the factual as well as the legal submission made on behalf of the petitioner in the reply dated 24.01.2022. It is also submitted that before issuing the said notice, the respondent No. 2 failed to consider that the identity of any person as the President of the Trade Union was inconsequential for the propose of registration, even if such person had ceased to be the same under Section 21(A) of the Act, 1926. Moreover, it was already put to the notice of the Deputy Secretary, Office of the Labour Commissioner, Jharkhand, Ranchi by way of filing the said reply that the erstwhile President, who was convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC, did not participate in the meetings of the petitioner-Trade Union and he was also not the applicant seeking registration of the petitioner-Trade Union. Irrespective of the said fact, the President of the petitioner-Trade Union was immediately substituted by another duly qualified person.

3. Ms. Pinki Tiwari, learned A.C. to A.G. appearing on behalf of the respondents, raises a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the present writ petition and submits that the present writ petition is premature as the respondent No. 2 has merely issued a notice to the petitioner-Trade Union in Form-D and no final order has yet been passed by the respondent No. 2 in terms with the provisions of Section 10 of the Act, 1926.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the contents of the present writ petit