ORDER :

S. Vaidyanathan, J.

1. This Appeal has been filed to set aside the order dated 26.10.2016 passed in O.M. A3/5794/16 by the Respondent, namely, Deputy Commissioner of Labour I, Chennai, who is the Authority under the Trade Unions Act, by which, the request of the Appellant Association (hereinafter referred to as 'the Association') to register its Association was negatived by the Authority on the ground that the members of the Association are not in service.

2. It is not in dispute that none of the members of the Association are in employment of the Bank, though they were ex-employees of the Bank. It is the case of the Association that the members of the Association had decided to form an Association to espouse their grievances, relating to pension and other benefits, as the existing Trade Union is not widely bringing out their grievances. It is the further case of the Association that the issue regarding the eligibility period for the purpose pension can be raised in the form an Industrial Dispute and it cannot be done by an individual or he cannot approach the Civil Court for the relief. It is submitted that the individual is also barred from approaching this Court by way of Writ Petition, as the Court may shut the doors on the ground that the disputed question of fact cannot be gone into before this High Court.

3. According to the learned counsel for the Appellant, a reading of Section 2(g) of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (in short 'the Act, 1926') shows that it authorizes any person, who was in employment to form an Association, which should be registered under the Act, 1926. Though the employer, Workmen and industrial dispute have not been defined under the Act, 1926, the Industrial Disputes Act alone can be invoked for the purpose of raising a dispute with regard to the issue falling under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, It is stated by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the mandatory requirement is that a group of seven persons can only form an Association and in that event, it is obligatory on the part of the Authority to register the Trade Union, unless or otherwise there are any obstacles like reflection of very same name or any other issue concerned or that are prohibited under the 1926 Act. It is further stated by the learned counsel for the Appellant that when the minimum requirement is seven even after amendment in 2002, substituted by Act 31 of 2001, which came into force from 09.01.2002, it is not right on the part of the Authority to reject the registration of the Association.

4. Mr. M. Sricharan Rangarajan, learned Special Government Pleader (CS) appearing for the respondent has vehemently contended that the persons, who are on roll can only make such application for registration of the Association under the Act, 1926 and even after amendment in the year 2002, there was no deletion of any mandatory requirement. He has further contended that a reading of the words used in Section 2 (e), (g) and 22 (1) & (2) makes it very clear that there shall be persons actually engaged or employed in an industry with which the Trade Union is connected and in the absence of such stipulation, the Authority is empowered to reject the application. On the date of application, there should be a group of seven persons and in case the number is reduced, still the Authority is empowered to register the Trade Union, but making an application with seven persons, who retired from service and are not connected with the employment on the date of application is not permissible in law and it will set a bad precedent for other similarly placed persons to knock at the doors of Registrar of Trade Unions to register their Association.

5. The learned Special Government Pleader (CS) has submitted that there are two judgments with regard to registration of Trade Union, viz., a judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of Government Tool Room and Training Centre's Supervisory and Officers' Association, Bangalore and anot