Tata Workers Union vs State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

on 22 February, 2002

Jharkhand High Court

Tata Workers Union vs State Of Jharkhand And Anr. on 22 February, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002 (95) FLR 39, (2002) IIILLJ 474 Jhar
Author: M Eqbal
Bench: M Eqbal
ORDER M.Y. Eqbal, J.

1. Petitioner Tata Workers Union, a registered trade union has moved this Court by filing instant
writ application against the order dated 13.8.2001 passed by respondent No. 2, Labour
Commissioner-cum-Registrar, Trade Union, Department of Labour, Employment and Training,
Jharkhand at Ranchi, whereby he has taken decision to supervise Union election of the petitioner,

2. Petitioner Tata Workers union has its own registered Constitution and election rules framed as
early as in 1920. The Constitution provides for the composition of the Executive Committee and the
members of the said Committee shall be elected by the general body members as per election
procedure as drawn by the Executive Committee. The last election of the Executive Committee and
the office bearer was held in 1996-97 and the present Executive Committee as formed alongwith the
office bearer. It appears that meeting of the Executive Committee of the Union was held on
19.4.2001. The Committee resolved to hold election of the new office bearers and the Executive
Committee.

3. The dispute arose when Shri P.K. Balmuchu, MLA and member of the present Executive
Committee, who is intervenor stated that the election will be held under the supervision of the
Registrar. Trade Union. Accordingly, the election process was started and the Returning Officer and
the members of the Election Sub-committee were appointed and the Registrar Trade Union was
informed about the circulation of the notices. However, respondent No. 2, Registrar Trade Union
after going through the complaints and the documents produced by the petitioner advised the
aggrieved persons to settle the grievance, if any, within the Union itself. Consequent upon, the said
later dated 15.6.2001 passed by the Registrar notices were issued by the Returning Officer to submit
grievance/suggestions, if any. The Registrar held meeting and confirmed the action of the Union
and election programme was circulated. Thereafter the above named Shri P.K. Balmuchu, the
intervenor filed the writ petition before this Court being W.P. (C) No. 3526 of 2001 seeking a
direction from this Court upon the Registrar to supervise elec-

tion of the petitioner. The said writ application was disposed of on 6.8.2001 by this court holding
that there is nothing on the record to suggest any malpractice at the stage of election and no
allegation was made against any individual member of the Trade Union. This Court therefore
refused to grant any relief but made observation that if the petitioner was apprehensive of any
malpractice or irregularities he may bring the same to the nice of the Registrar, Trade Unions who
may determine the question of necessity to supervise the election, if otherwise permissible in law.
Again some disputes arose between the members of the Union which resulted in a order dated
8.8.2001 passed by the Registrar who stayed election. This time petitioner came to this Court by
filing W.P. (L) No. 3790/2001. This Court disposed of th writ application holding that the competent
authority is given liberty to hold election in accordance with law without any interference from the

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1558429/ 1

 Tata Workers Union vs State Of Jharkhand And Anr. on 22 February, 2002

side of the Government authority. The said order was passed on 5.12.2001 but during the pendency
of the aforesaid writ application the Registrar. Trade Union passed another order on 13.8.2001,
whereby petitioner was directed to come with all the records relating to the election. This order is
impugned in this writ application at the instance of the petitioner.

4. From the facts narrated herein above, it is clear that the election of the Union could not be held
due to some internal dispute and the orders time to time passed by the Registrar Trade Union in the
matter of conducting and holding election of the Trade Union.

5. The power of the Registrar under the Trade Union Act. 1926 in the matter of superintendence or
control over the internal affairs has been considered at length by a Division Bench of Patna High
Court in the case Bokaro Steel Workers Union v. State of Bihar, (1995) 1 PLJR 400. The Division
Bench held:

"On an examination and analysis of the Patna decision (Mukund Ram Tanti's case), the Allahabad,
Andhra and the Madras decisions, I come to the following conclusions;

(i) In a dispute between two rival factions claiming to be the office bearers of a union, it is open to
the Registrar to hold an enquiry for the purpose of maintaining and up-dating the register as
required to be maintained under Section 8 of the Act.

(ii) His decision in this regard shall neither confer any right on any person or group of persons nor
divest any person or group of persons of any lawful rights.

(iii) Consequently the Registrar has no authority or power to issue any direction asking/advising the
Labour Department of the Government or the employer to recognise and treat any particular person
or group of persons as the duly elected office bearers of the union in dealing with that union.

(iv) The Registrar, Trade Unions has no authority or power to direct the holding of election of the
office bearers of a union under his own supervisions of under the supervision of his nominee.

(v) In the absence of any provision in the Trade Unions Act, any dispute of this kind can only be
resolved by means ot a suit filed before a Civil Court.

(vi) The adjudication in a suit at least in this State is normally a slow and time consuming process
and does not constitute a wholly satisfactory remedy for resolving the dispute.

(vii) The legislature will, therefore, be well advised to address itself to this lacuna in the Trade Union
Act and to take steps to remedy it which has been long overdue."

6. The question was again considered by a Divisions Bench of Patna High Court in the case of R.N.
Singh and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Ors., (1998) 1 PLJR 730, the Court observed that:

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1558429/ 2

 Tata Workers Union vs State Of Jharkhand And Anr. on 22 February, 2002

"The submission urged on behalf of the petitioners appears to be sound in law. There is no statute or
rule which provides a forum for the adjudication of internal disputes of trade unions, nor is there
any law which provides a forum for adjudication of disputes relating to election of office bearers,
under Section 8 of the Trade Union Act, 1928 the Registrar is required to register the Trade Union
by entering in a register to be maintained in such form as may be prescribed, the particulars relating
to the Trade Union contained in the statement accompanying the applica-

tion for registration. In Form B the name of office bearers has to be entered. Where there is a
dispute as to who are elected office bearers of a particular Union, it has been consistently held by
this Court and by other High Courts as well that it is not within the jurisdiction of the Registrar of
Trade Unions to determine which of the rival groups of office bearers is the real one. This is because
under the Trade Union Act, 1926 there is no provision for adjudication of such disputes by any
designated officer of authority. Obviously, therefore, when such disputes arise they have to be
resolved only by filing a civil suit in a. court of competent jurisdiction. No provision of law or rule
has been brought to our notice which authorises the Joint Labour Commissioner to refer for
adjudication the internal disputes of an Union, There is also no provision of law which provides for
holding of election under the supervision of Registrar, Trade Unions. Counsel for the petitioner is
therefore, right in submitting that thereis no legal authority for issuance of impugned orders
(Annexures 12 and 13) under which the internal disputes were referred for adjudication by the
Independent Board and upon its recommendation election is directed to be held under the
supervision of Registrar, Trade Union. A similar view has been taken by a Division Bench of this
Court in CWJC No. 3516 of 1981 decided on 12th March, 1982. We are in respectful agreement with
the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgment."

7. The law in this regard is therefore well settled that the Registrar cannot intervene in the matter of
holding election of the office bearers of the registered Trade Union. Even assuming that the
Registrar has got the power, it appears from the facts and the evidence produced in the instant case
that the parties are unnecessary trying to involve the Registrar Trade Union by making complaint,
as a result of which holding of election has been postponeded.

8. In course of argument, learned counsels appearing for the parties including intervenor agreed
that they shall have no objection if the election of the Executive Committee and the office bearers is
held under the supervision of Deputy Commissioner and the Superintendent of Police, Singhbhum
East. Jamshedpur. I my opinion also in the facts of the case, it is desirable that election should be
held in strict supervision and control of Deputy Commissioner and the Superintendent of Police,
Singhbhum East. Jamshedpur.

9. This writ application is, therefore, disposed of with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner and
the Superintendent of Police. Singhbhum East. Jamshedpur to strictly supervise and control the
election of the office bearers of Union and members of Executive Committee of the Tata Workers
Union. Petitioner shall intimate in advance the date of holding election to the Deputy Commissioner
and the Superintendent of Police, Singhbhum East. Jamshedpur.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1558429/ 3