AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioners, who are two in number, are the employees of Hyderabad Allwyn Limited, Sanathnagar Hyderabad. They have filed this writ petition for a declaration that the amendments approved by the Dy. Registrar of Trade Unions, Hyderabad to the Rules of the Hyderabad Allwyn Workers Union are illegal and invalid. The Hyderabad Allwyn Workers Union, of which these two petitioners are also members, is a trade union registered under the Trade Union Act. As it is common, it is riven with factional fights. The general body of the Trade Union in its meeting held on 22nd February 1986 selected one G. Sanjeeva Reddy, a labour leader of I.N.T.U.C. pursuation as the President of the Trade Union. The general body on 9th January 1986 passed a resolution making amendments and alterations to the Rules of the Trade Union and on 15th May 1986, the amendments and alterations were approved by the Registrar of the Trade Union. These amended Rules provide for the affiliation of the Trade Union with the Indian National Trade Union Congress and make admission to the Trade Union subject to the condition that the workers of the Hyderabad Allwyn Limited accept the policies and programmes of the I.N.T.U.C.
These Rules provide for forfeiture of the membership on the ground of non-payment of subscription, but reserves the power to the President to extend the voting rights even to such members without payment of the subscription. These Rules also provide for the election of the President and appointment by nomination of other office bearers by the President. The nominated office bearers include 5 Vice Presidents, one General Secretary, not less than 2 Joint Secretaries, not less
than 4 Organising Secretaries and one Treasurer. These Rules provide for the Union Election to take place once in two years, and grant powers to the President to appoint the Returning Officers to conductor the elections, including to the post of the President. The President under these Rules will prepare the voters'' list. If for any reason these elections could not be conducted by the President at the end of two years of time, the General Body has been given the power to extend the two year term of the President. The President has been given the power to remove, expel or suspend any member of the Union for his anti-Union activities or indisciplined behavior. Above all, those amended Rules provide that the elected President shall remain in full term of years in the office, without anyone having right to pass a no-confidence motion against him. Under the A.P. Trade Union Regulations and more particularly under Regulation 15, the Registrar of Trade Unions has been given the power to register the alterations to the Rules after satisfying him-self that the alterations have been made in the manner laid down by the Rules of the Trade Union and is not inconsistent with any of the provisions of the Trade Union Act. Now, the Trade Union has written on 17th January 1986 to the Registrar informing him of these alterations and amendments. That letter was received by the Registrar on 22nd January 1986. On 15th May 1986, the Registrar has registered these Regulations under Regulation 15. A group of workmen belonging to the petitioners'' group complained to the Registrar on 15th September 1986 against the registration. They also complained on 16th February 1987. Both the complaints are, in substance, based upon the allegations that the meeting of the General Body is not a genuine transaction; the signatures of the members who are supposed to have attended that meeting and agreed to the amendments are forged and that those amendments were also inconsistent with the Act. The Registrar, by his replies dated 10th October 1986 and 9th March 1987, had rejected these contentions and upheld his action of registering the amendments. Now, this writ petition has been filed challenging the validity of these amendments.
It is necessary to mention that the concern of this Court in a matter like this is not with the substance of the amendments but their legality. The Rules are required by the A.P. Trade Union Regulations, 1927, more particularly, Regulations No. 15, to be registered by the Registrar of Trade Unions. That Regulation reads as follows :-
"15(1). On receiving a copy of the alteration made in the rules of a trade union sent under sub-section (3) of Section 28, the Registrar, after satisfying himself that the alteration has been made in the manner laid down by the rules of the trade union and is not inconsistent with any of the provisions of the Act, shall register the alteration in the entry relating to the trade union in the register of trade union prescribed under Regulation 4 and deliver to the Secretary of such trade union a copy of the alteration with a certificate appended thereto to the effect that the alteration has been duly registered by him.
(2) The fee payable for registration or alterations of rules shall be Re. 1 for each set of alterations made simultaneously."
A reading of the above Regulation shows that the Registrar has not only the power to register the amendments to the Rules but is under a duty to examine the amendments for their consistency with the Act. He can exercise that power only after satisfying himself that the alteration has been made in the manner laid down by the Rules of the Trade Union and is not inconsistent with any of the provisions of the Act. The question whether these amendments and alterations have been made in the manner laid down by the Rules of the Trade Union depends for its answer upon the truth or otherwise of the allegations made by the petitioners that the signatures were forged and the general body meeting was not held properly. These allegations which are, no doubt, made by the petitioners were defined by the respondents. The officer who is normally expected to be neutral in such a context as this is also giving a version contrary to the one given by the petitioners, thus, while the petitioners alleged that the signatures presented to the Registrar showing the presence of the requisite number of the members of the Trade Union were forged, the respondents denied the same. Under these circumstances, I am not inclined to decide this question here under Art. 226 of the Constitution. It appears to me that question should be left to be decided by a Civil Court, if and when the question of the validity of the general body meeting alleged to have been held on 9th January 1986 was raised. The next question is whether these alterations in the Rules can be considered to be inconsistent with any of the provisions of the Act. This is a pure question of law. Regulation No. 15 clearly provides that the Registrar can register these amendments only if he is satisfied that these alterations are not inconsistent with any of the provisions of the Act. It appears to me that the amendments made by the general body on 9th January 1986 consisting the President virtually as the election authority is clearly contrary to the letter and spirit of the Trade Union Act. Hitherto, these elections are being conducted by the Labour Department. The President who is a party vitally interested in the conduct of the elections cannot be the person that can be entrusted with the authority to prepare the voters'' list, to appoint the Returning Officers and to conduct the elections. It is a clear case of a person being given the authority to perpetuate himself in office. Such a procedure is not less objectionable than constituting a person a Judge in his own cause. That is clearly contrary to the provisions of Clause (h) of Section 6 of the Act. Section 6 contemplates the Constitution of the executive of the trade union to be in accordance with the provisions of the Act and sub-clause (h) contemplates the appointment and removal of office bearers of the trade union. It is clear that when the statute used the words "manner", it does not sanction the use of any manner however arbitrary and however unconscionable it might be. The word "manner" contemplates a "reasonable manner". A method by which a person seeking the office shall himself be the authority to conduct the elections cannot be considered to be a reasonable manner. It is wholly opposed to the ordinary notions of justice and under the authority of A.K. Kraipak and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, . I have no hesitation in holding the Rules providing for the vesting of the authority in the President to conduct the elections to be inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. In fact, Sri Surender Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent, has frankly conceded that this part of the rule is liable to be struck down on that ground. I accordingly set aside the amended Rules providing for vesting of the powers to conduct the elections for the President. Similarly the amended rule which denied the authority to the general body to remove the President before his term of office expires at the end of two years is also obnoxious to the provisions of the Act and more particularly to Section 6 of the Act. Clause (h) of Section 6 contemplates the removal of the office bearer of the Trade Union. All that it leaves to the rules to be done is to provide the manner of the removal of the office bearer. The amended rule which denies the general body the authority and power to remove the President is clearly contrary to the provisions of the statute. I, accordingly, hold that the amendments and alterations of the Rules are illegal and ought not to have been registered by the Registrar. I may mention that the learned Counsel, Sri Surender Rao, appearing for the 2nd respondent, had agreed that this provisional amendment was also bad for its inconsistency with the statute.
It is also argued that the two years term which has been brought into existence by the amended rules will ensure only to the benefit of those who are elected subsequently to the approval of the amendments on 15th May 1986 by the Registrar and that, therefore, the 2nd respondent can have only one year term of office which would expire by 22nd February 1986. Although, I see considerable force in this argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, I am not inclined to decide that question because the person elected as President has not been made a party in his name. I leave that question to be agitated by the petitioners by other proceedings which they may initiate if they are so advised.
I do not agree with the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the alteration of the Rules providing for the two year term is also ultra vires of the Act. The general body in fixing the term of the elected President as two years is not in any way violating any provisions of the Act. However the general body in so far as it empowers the President to nominate the office bearers of the executive committee, is acting contrary both to Secs. 22 and 6(b) of the Act. u/s 22 of the Act, not less than one half of the total number of office bearer shall be the persons actually engaged or employed in an industry with which the Trade Union is connected. The persons actually engaged or employed in industries can normally be only like the petitioners. The altered rule provides that the President can appoint any of the members of the executive Committee, from any source. For that reason, I am of the opinion that the altered rule violates the provision of Section 6. I, accordingly, make that declaration, in terms indicated above.
The other contention of the petitioners regarding the validity of the altered rules does not carry much conviction. It is, accordingly, rejected.
This writ petition is allowed, but in the circumstances, without costs.