ORDER

24.07.2023 Date :

Heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr.

H.K. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. N. Ahmed, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 4, appearing on behalf of Mr. J. Roy, learned senior counsel, and Mr. U.K. Nair, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. K. Kalita, learned counsel for respondent nos. 5 and 6 and Mr. B.D. Das, senior counsel, assisted by Ms. R. Deka, learned counsel for respondent no.7.

2) The connected interlocutory application was filed by the writ petitioner. In the considered opinion of the Court, in the same effort that would be taken in disposing of the said interlocutory application, the writ petition can also be decided. Hence, with the consent of the learned senior counsel and counsel for the appearing parties, the writ petition, which is otherwise in the admission stage, has been heard along with the said connected interlocutory application.

3) The learned senior counsel for the respondent nos. 5 and 6 and the learned senior counsel for respondent no. 7 have both raised the preliminary issue of maintainability of this writ petition because of appellate forum available to agitate the issues raised in this writ petition. In this regard, it was submitted that the registration of the petitioner union was cancelled by the impugned order and in respect of the said action, provision for appeal is provided in section 11 of the Trade Unions Act, 1929, which according to the learned senior counsel for respondent nos. 5 and 6 and respondent no. 7, is the statutory remedy available to the petitioner, for which this Court may not like to decide highly disputed factual issues.

4) The said preliminary issue relating to alternative remedy is vehemently contested by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner.

Facts of the case:

5) In brief, the case of the petitioners is that the petitioner no. 1, namely, Oil and Gas Employees’ Union is a Trade Union within the meaning of Trade Unions Act, 1926. The petitioner no. 2 is a Member of the said Trade Union and is the General Secretary thereof. The said trade union was originally registered on 02.04.1998 as “Technical Workers’ Union”, with its registration number as 1718. On 11.05.2013, a resolution was adopted in the general meeting of the Trade Union to alter the name of the petitioner no. 1 Trade Union to “Oil and Gas Employees’ Union”. Accordingly, the certificate of registration was re-issued in the new name.

6) It is projected that the Labour Officer, Dibrugarh vide letter dated 17.09.2013, had informed the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Dibrugarh about the general meeting of the Technical Worker’s Union held in the office of the Oil India Workers’ Union on 11.05.2013 and renaming of the Union as Oil and Gas Employees’ Union. It was reported that the records of general meeting along with names of members was verified and found to be genuine and that more than 300 members had attended the meeting. Thereafter, vide letter dated 08.11.2013, the Registrar of Trade Unions had informed the General Secretary of Technical Workers’ Union that the request for amendment in clause 1(a), 5(a), 7(a), 7(b) and insertion of new symbol and clause 7(c) and 7(d) in Trade Union’s Constituion had been registered on 07.11.2013. Accordingly, it is projected that the general meeting of the Union and the resolution of change of name was lawful in all respects.

7) Thereafter, the Registrar of Trade Unions (respondent no. 2) had issued a show-cause notice dated 22.03.2017, as to why the registration of Oil and Gas Workers’ Union should not be withdrawn or cancelled as irregularities mentioned therein were in violation of section 28 of the Trade Unions’ Act, 1926. The petitioner had submitted their response on 28.03.2017. After a lapse of about 2 (two) years, the petitioner had received a show-cause notice dated 19.03.2019, under section 10 of the Trade Unions Act from the respondent no. 2 intimating why the registration of certifica