ORDER :

Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

The order dated 13th June 2017 passed by the Labour Commissioner-cum-Registrar, Trade Union, Government of Jharkhand was challenged by Forty-nine persons in W.P(C) No. 3628 of 2017.

2. Two persons claiming similar rights as claimed by those Forty-nine persons and raising a similar plea approached this Court in W.P(C) No. 3322 of 2017.

3. They all questioned legality of the order dated 13th June 2017 by which the application by Fifteen persons claiming themselves newly elected office bearers of the Telco Workers' Union (in short, Union) in Form-B register was allowed and name of the aforesaid Fifty-one persons were deleted from the Executive Committee of Union.

4. Before the writ Court several arguments were advanced one of which was that the Registrar, Trade Union has no powers and jurisdiction to adjudicate dispute between two rival factions of the Union claiming themselves validly elected. It was further argued that the Labour Commissioner-cum-Registrar, Trade Union, Government of Jharkhand who is the respondent no.2 passed the order dated 13th June 2007 without affording an opportunity of hearing and supplying a copy of the enquiry report by the respondent no.3. The writ petitioners also set up a case that signature of several persons appearing in the minutes of meeting were duplicate and forged.

5. On the other hand, the respondents three of whom are the appellants before us supported the order dated 13th June 2017 and took a plea that the dispute sought to be raised by the writ petitioners was not amenable to writ jurisdiction.

6. The writ Court held that the disputed questions of fact raised by both parties cannot be adjudicated in a writ jurisdiction and, the Registrar, Trade Union has no jurisdiction to decide inter-se dispute between the rival factions and, accordingly, set aside the order dated 13th June 2017 passed by the respondent no.2. The writ Court thereafter proceeded to appoint Deputy-Commissioner, Jamshedpur (East Singhbhum) as Special Officer to conduct election of the Union within 8 weeks after verifying the voter-list and election by secret ballots.

7. This part of the judgment by which fresh elections were ordered has been challenged by the appellants who were made respondents in the writ proceedings.

8. By an order dated 11th September 2017, the aforesaid order passed by the writ Court was stayed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court and L.P.A No.456 of 2017 was admitted for hearing. It was further ordered by this Court that L.P.A No.455 of 2017 shall also be heard together with L.P.A No.456 of 2017.

9. By an order dated 25th May 2018, I.A No. 9192 of 2017 which was filed in L.P.A No. 456 of 2017 for recalling the order dated 11th September 2017 has been dismissed.

10. It further appears that against the order dated 25th May 2018 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, Prakash Kumar, who is one of the writ petitioners approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 40475 of 2018 and the said petition was dismissed in the following terms:

“Delay condoned.

Having heard learned counsel for both sides, we are of the view that since the term of the Committee is over in August, 2018, fresh election should be held, which will be subject to the decision in the pending LPA.

With these observations, the Special Leave Petitions are disposed of.

Pending applications also stand disposed of.”

11. Now, the admitted position is that fresh elections have been conducted and the newly elected office bearers have assumed the charge.

12. The learned counsels appearing for the parties have reiterated their respective stands taken before the writ Court.

13. The plea urged on behalf of the appellants is that once it is held that the dispute sought to be raised by the parties was not amenable to writ jurisdiction, the writ Court could not have proceeded to appoint the Deputy-Commissioner, Jamshedpur (East Singhbhum) as Special Officer to hold elections.

14. Having gone thro