Back
2002 Supreme(All) 1482
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Anjani Kumar, J.
NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY EMPLOYEES UNION AND ORS. - Appellant
Versus
DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER/deputy REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS AND ORS. - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 26300 Of 2002
Decided On : 10/11/2002
A.P.Sahay, Anil Bhushan, ANU JAISWAL, Arun Kumar, G.K.SINGH, KRISHNA MURARI, R.N.Singh, T.P.SINGH
The right to dispute office-bearers elections under the Trade Unions Act is not provided for in the statute, and the remedy lies in filing a civil suit.
Headnote:
Trade Unions Act - Dispute over office-bearers elections - Section 27, and other analogous provisions of the Trade Unions Act - Summary of the judgment's legal framework
Fact of the Case:
The court dismissed a writ petition as infructuous due to expired term of office-bearers elections. An application for recall of the order was filed, and the court directed the Labour Commissioner to decide on the matter. The Registrar later decided the controversy, leading to subsequent writ petitions.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the dismissal of the writ petition and the Registrar's decision, stating that the matter did not require interference and that the dispute over office-bearers elections should be resolved through a civil court.
Issues: Validity of the Registrar's decision on office-bearers elections under the Trade Unions Act, and the court's jurisdiction to interfere in such matters.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Registrar's decision on office-bearers elections is administrative and not subject to challenge under the Trade Unions Act. It emphasized that the right to dispute such elections lies in filing a civil suit.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions and the application for recall of the order, upholding the Registrar's decision and stating that the matter should be resolved through a civil court.
( 1 ) ALL the three writ petitions since based on the common facts and raises common question of law, therefore, they are heard and disposed of by this common judgment with the consent of the parties.
( 2 ) THE first writ petition, i. e. , Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 37935 of 1999 came up for hearing before me on 15th October, 2001 and the said petition was dismissed by me as having become infructuous in view of the fact that the petitioners had made the following prayers :
(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the record of the case and quashing the order dated 19. 8. 1999 (Annexure-18) passed by the Deputy Labour commissioner/deputy Registrar, Trade Unions, Gorakhpur ;
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to recognise and register and not to interfere in the working of Central Working Committee of north Eastern Railway Employees Union (P. R. K. S.) Gorakhpur, elected on 29. 6. 1999 in an election meeting and returned by Honble S. R. Mishra (Ex. Judge of Allahabad and Calcutta high Courts) acting as Returning Officer in terms of the directions issued by this Honble Court in the judgment of Honble O. P. Garg, J. , in Writ Petition Nos. 1629 of 1999 and 1632 of 1999 vide orders dated 1. 2. 1999 and 19. 2. 1999 ;
(tii) Issue any other or further orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case ; (iv) Award the cost of the petition to the petitioners. "
( 3 ) THE order dated 19. 8. 1999 (Annexure-18 to the writ petition), which was subject-matter of challenge in Writ Petition No. 37935 of 1999. was an order passed by the Deputy Registrar of the Trade Unions, Gorakhpur, in exercise of power under Section 27 and other analogous provisions of the Trade Unions Act on Form j submitted to the Registrar for the purpose of maintaining register of office-bearers of the recognised registered Trade Unions.
( 4 ) FROM the perusal of Form j, which was subject-matter of Writ Petition No. 37935 of 1999, it is clear that the elections, which were communicated to the Registrar for the purpose of maintaining register in Form j, were held for one year. Admittedly on 15th October. 2001, when the aforesaid order was passed, one year period was over and since the term for which the elections were held had expired, this petition was dismissed as having become infructuous by efflux of time.
( 5 ) AN application was filed for recall of the said order dated 15th October, 2001, which came up for hearing before me and after hearing the learned senior counsel appearing for the parties, the following order was passed by me on 30th October, 2001 :
"this application for recall of the order dated 15th October, 2001, has been argued by Sri R. N. Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and opposed by Sri T. P. Singh, learned senior counsel for the other side. Parties are in agreement that before disposal of this application, as stated in paragraph No. 12 of the affidavit filed in support of this application, since fresh elections were already held in the month of December, 2000 and in 2001, which are subject to the approval by the Labour commissioner in Form j. However, it has not been disputed that the elections in the months of may to July, 2001, have already been held for the term of two years, Sri T. P. Singh, learned counsel has referred to the notice from his client that tomorrow is the date fixed before the labour Commissioner with regard to election of December, 2000. In these circumstances, without entertaining into the merits or otherwise in this application, I direct the Labour Commissioner to decide Form j, within a period of fifteen days from today. It will be open to the parties to file such application as they choose. List this application in the week commencing on 19th November, 2001. "
( 6 ) THE above order was passed by me because it has been stated in the said application for recall of the order da
