The Registrar of Trade Unions cannot withdraw previously issued administrative decisions once acted upon without clear statutory authority, especially when such actions violate principles of natural justice.

ORDER :

Nagesh Bheemapaka, J.

Petitioner - BHEL Workers Union is affiliated to the All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC), a recognized central trade union organization. It is stated, the said Union participated in the Trade Union verification elections conducted by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad on 12.08 2023, along with other trade unions operating in the establishment. Upon conclusion of the said verification process, the BHEL Workers Union (AITUC) secured the highest number of votes and was accordingly, declared as the Majority Union. Consequently, the Management of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited acknowledged the status of Petitioner Union as the recognised union and addressed a letter to Petitioner congratulating him in his capacity as the President of the Union, thereby acknowledging both the outcome of the verification elections and the leadership of Petitioner.

1.1. Petitioner further states that after the declaration of the Union as the Majority Union, it became necessary, in accordance with established trade union practice, to elect new office bearers to administer the affairs of the Union for the ensuing period. In this regard, steps were initiated to convene the Annual General Body Meeting of the Union. The AITUC State President was requested to act as the Election Officer, and he accordingly, agreed to preside over the General Body Meeting and conduct the election process in a fair and transparent manner. The Annual General Body Meeting was thus convened and held on 11.07.2024 under the supervision of the said Election Officer.

1.2. According to Petitioner, out of a total membership strength of 354 AITUC members, as many as 273 attended the said General Body Meeting. The Election Officer called for nominations for each office, and that for every post, only one nomination was received. Consequently, all the nominated candidates were declared elected unopposed. Petitioner was unanimously elected as President. It is further stated that the entire proceedings of the General Body Meeting, including election process, were videographed, that representatives of leading newspapers were present, and that the election results were widely reported in the print media. Petitioner asserts that due intimation of the conduct of the General Body Meeting and the election of office bearers was furnished to the Management as well as to the concerned Labour Authorities.

1.3. Petitioner alleges that Respondent No.5, despite being fully aware of the convening of the General Body Meeting and the election process, deliberately chose not to attend the said meeting. It is contended that subsequent thereto, Respondent No.5 submitted false, misleading and fabricated representations to the authorities and the body. According to Petitioner, despite the transparent and duly conducted election Management, questioning the legitimacy of the General Body Meeting and the elected process, the Labour Authorities and the Management failed to take timely steps to recognise the elected body. Aggrieved by such inaction, Petitioner states that he was constrained to file Writ Petition No. 23916 of 2024, wherein this Court directed the authority concerned to verify the list of members who attended the General Body Meeting conducted on 11.07.2024 and to recognise the elected body in accordance with law. Petitioner asserts that despite subsistence of the said interim order, the directions of this Court were not implemented, compelling him to initiate con