The Dy. Labour Commissioner has jurisdiction to deal with the matter of change of office bearers in a registered trade union under the notification issued by the State Government. The petitioner was afforded reasonable opportunity of being heard. The enquiry conducted by the Dy. Labour Commissioner was summary in nature and did not violate any rules of natural justice.

( 1 ) WE are disposing of this petition finally at the admission stage after hearing learned counsel for the petitoner as well as Shri R. K. Jain who represents Sri A. K. Jaiswal, the third respondent.

( 2 ) IFFCO Phuipur Karmachari Sangh is a registered Trade Union. Like all trade unions it suffers from the malaise of factionalism. Two groups have emerged, one led by Rajendra Rai who has presented this petition in the name of the Trade Union, and the other by A. K. Jaiswal, the third respondent herein, who represents the other. For the past two years or more both these warring groups have been vying with one another for seeking recognition in the shape of entry of the names of the office-bearers elected every year at the meeting held separately by them for that purpose in the Register of Trade Unions. In regard to the last years elections two petitions are already pending in this Court. We are, however, concerned with the elections held by the two groups for the current year, i. e. 1990-91 and the order dated July 3, 1991 passed by the Dy. Labour Commissioner/dy Registrar, Trade Unions, U. P. , Allahabad Region, upholding the claim of the group represented by A. K. Jaiswal and rejecting that put forward by the faction led by rajendra Rai.

( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the order passed by the Dy. Labour Commissioner dated July 3, 1991, Rajendra rai has approached this Court by way of this petition. By the impugned order the Dy Labour commissioner/ Dy Registrar, Trade Unions, U. P. , had purported to exercise powers vested in him under a notification dated November 29, 1990 issued by the State Government under section 3 (2) of the Trade Unions Act, 1926, authorising the Regional Dy. Labour commissioners to exercise all powers and functions of the Registrar of Trade Unions in the areas of their respective jurisdictions save for the powers and functions relating to registration of trade unions and cancellation of registration, change of name and amalgamation of trade unions under sections 8, 10, 23 and 24 respectively under the superintendence and directions of the Registrar. More specifically the Dy. Labour Commissioner has purported to exercise powers under regulation 17-A of the U. P. Trade Unions Regulations framed under the aforesaid Act. It provides for intimation regarding any change of the officers of a registered trade union and the registrar is required to record the change in the Register of Trade Unions, maintained under section 8. This regulation is, as we shall presently demonstrate, referable to Section 28 which provides for sending a statement of all changes of office bearers made by the Trade Union. It was in the exercise of this power that the impugned order appears to have been passed by the Dy. Labour Commissioner of the concerned region.

( 4 ) THE impugned order has been challenged by Sri Rakesh Dwivedi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, on three grounds. We will deal with them one by one.

( 5 ) WE begin with the first ground of attack. It was urged that the notification dated November 29, 1990, the substance of which has been set out hereinabove, specifically excepts the power of the registrar of registering trade unions under Section 8 of the Act from the powers delegated under the notification to the Dy. Labour Commissioners. And inasmuch as in the submission of Sri dwivedi, entries of changes in the Register of Trade Unions is referable only to Section 8 which lays down the procedure for registration, the Dy. Labour Commissioner exceeded his jurisdiction in directing the changes of office-bearers as communicted by A. K. Jaiswal, In short, the argument was that making changes in the names of the office bearers in the Register of Trade unions maintained by the Registrar under Section 8 with respect to any trade union is neither more nor less than an exercise amounting to registration of trade unions.

( 6 ) WE are unable to agree. The petitioner Trade union was registered, according to the learned