Back
2010 Supreme(All) 2126
[2010(7) ADJ 34 (DB)]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : F.I. REBELLO, C.J. AND A.P. SAHI, J.
ROADWAYS MAZDOOR SABHA, UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER …..Appellants
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS ….Respondents
(Special Appeal No. 939 of 2010, decided on 7th July, 2010)
Counsel :
T.P. Singh and Narendra Singh for the Appellants; K.P. Agrawal and Miss Bushra Maryam, C.S.C. for the Respondents.
Headnote:(A) Trade Unions Act, 1926—Sections 11 and 18—Trade Union—Registration—Remedy against is appeal under Section 11—Either before High Court where the Head office of Trade Union is situated or before any authority as provided in the Act—Objects and reasons of Act it self show that Act is enacted to provide for registration of Trade Unions and to define law relating to registered Trade Unions. [Para 5]
(B) Trade Unions Act, 1926—Section 28—U.P. Trade Unions Regulations, Regulation 17-A—Powers—Registration—Scope for exercise of—Apart from registering trade Unions or relating registration—Registrar has power to consider application showing change of office-bearers of trade union, keeping in view terms of Rules or bye-laws of trade unions—But nature of inuiry is that regard is not qusi-judicial—It is only an administrative enquiry—When there is dispute within rival groups with regard to as who is office-bearer, it is Civil Court which has jurisdiction. [Paras 5 to 8]
(C) Trade Unions Act, 1926—Sections 28, 18, 14, 3 and 2(f)—U.P. Trade Unions Regulations, Regulation 17-A—Powers of Registrar under Section 28—Scope for exercise of—He is to exercise it on his own satisfaction—Any D.O. letter or instruction of State Governmernt—Not binding on Registrar—Any order passed by Registrar—Is appelable under Section 14—Moreover, it is not open to State Government to issue any direction to Registrar to exercise his powers in a particular way—Order passed by Registrar on basis of D.O. letter of State Government—Against law. [Para 11]
(D) Trade Unions Act, 1926—Section 28—U.P. Trade Unions Regulations, Regulation 17-A—Powers of Registrar under Section 28—Scope for exercise of—Review of his own order—Not permissible—His powers are party of administrative nature—However if it is apperrant from face of record that order has been obtained by practicing fraud, Registrar can recall it—But question of fraud has to be decided by Civil Court. [Para 12]
(E) Constitution of India, 1950—Article 226—Trade Unions Act, 1926—Section 28—U.P. Trade Unions Regulations, Regulation 17-A—Writ petition challenging order of Registrar—By which he directed Trade Union to hold fresh election of office-bearers—High Court after eleborating relevant law, holding that order was without jurisdiction—Cannot refuse to interfere with that order, by holding that substantive justice has been done—High Court's decision—Erroneous—Liable to be quashed. [Paras 13 to 15]
Result; Order Accordingly.
Cases cited :
1998 FLR (79) Patna 829; 1995 FLR (71) Patna 257 (Para 7)-Assented to; 1991 FLR (63) All 823 (DB) (Para 7)-Followed; (2002) 1 UPLBEC 430; 1969 Lab IC 209 (All) (Para 7)-Relied on.
Hon’ble F.I. Rebello, C.J.—This is a special appeal by the Union - Roadways Mazdoor Sabha, Uttar Pradesh (appellant No. 1) and another, who claims to be the State President of the said Union. The respondent Nos. 5 and 6 herein also claim to be the office bearers of appellant No. 1. There, thus, appears to be a dispute in respect of who are the office bearers of the appellant No. 1. The appellants herein, who were the original petitioners, had approached the learned Single Judge to impugn the order dated 25.1.2010. By that order, the Registrar of the Trade Unions had directed the two rival factions, both claiming to be the office bearers of appellant No. 1, to hold fresh elections. It is the grievance of the appellants that the Registrar had no jurisdiction under the provisions of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and the Regulations framed thereunder in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
2. A few facts may be set out, which would be relevant for considering the issues which arise in the present appeal.
The appellant No. 2 contends that he was the President duly elected at a meeting of members held on 29.12.2008. After holding of elections, the list of office bearers was communicated to the Registrar in Form ‘J’ on 30.12.2008. Another Form ‘J’ was submitted by respondent Nos. 5 and 6 claiming themselves to be the office bearers who had been elected at a meeting held at Lucknow on 17.11.2008. The Registrar, according to the appellants, considered the rival contentions and after giving an opportunity, being satisfied that the office bearers led by appellant No. 2 were the duly elected office bearers took the said Form ‘J’ on record. The office bearers led by appellant No. 1 thereafter held fresh elections on 23.9.2009 as the term of one year was expiring in the month of December, 2009 and forwarded the list of office bearers as required under Form ‘J’ and the same is pending before the competent Registrar till date.
According to the appellant No. 2, the Registrar again proceeded to enquire into the matter at the instance of Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and acting under the pressure from Respondent No. 4, who is the Labour Minister in the Government of Uttar Pradesh, mala fide, reviewed the order and directed the holding of fresh elections. The appellants, in order to avoid legal problems, held elections on 22nd April, 2010. The office bearers led by respondent Nos. 5 and 6, it appears, also held elections on 23th April, 2010. Both the parties communicated the names of office bearers pursuant to elections so held to respondent No. 3 in Form ‘J’. The respondent No. 3 has, by his communication of 1.6.2010, cancelled the elections held by both the factions and has communicated the same to appellant No. 2 and respondent No. 6.
3. The appellants herein challenged the decision of the Registrar directing the holding of fresh elections, in a petition filed before this Court. That petition came up for hearing before a learned Judge of this Court who, by his order dated 20.5.2010, was pleased to dismiss the writ petition. The grievance of the appellants is that the learned Judge, after holding that the dispute in respect of who are the office bearers of the Union, cannot be considered by the Registrar but by the Civil Court, yet has affirmed the order of the Registrar directing the parties to hold fresh elections, which was beyond his jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge misdirected himself in law in upholding the order of the Registrar, when there was no power to recall the order, once he had accepted the list of office bearers submitted by appellant No. 2 in Form ‘J’. It is submitted that the finding by the learned Judge that the earlier order was passed arbitrarily, in violation of the guidelines dated 18th June, 1999 and without taking into consideration the other attending facts and circumstances, clearly discloses non-consideration of the facts on record and the provisions of
