AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Jyothimani, J.—The writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the first respondent dated 22.12.2006, in and by which the
first respondent by conducting enquiry in respect of the dispute between the first and third respondent has directed the parties to approach the civil
court to decide as to who are the duly elected office bearers of EID Parry Labour Union, Nellikuppam, Cuddalore District. As against the said
order of the first respondent, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
It is the case of the petitioner that the union election for the petitioner''s Union was held on 4.12.2005, in which, the third respondent was
elected as a President and that notification as per the bye-law of the Union is for a period of three years. The petitioner''s case is that inspite the
third respondent being elected as a President, he has not taken effective steps for convening the Joint Committee Meeting for the purpose of
introducing the newly elected office bearers to the Management. Subsequently also, a meeting was called on 19.1.2006 and 9.2.2006, in which,
the third respondent being the President has failed to participate. In view of the same, a General Body Meeting was convened on 13.4.2006. It is
the case of the petitioner that the General Body Meeting which held on 13.4.2006 decided to hold the election of the office bearers and the
election schedule was drawn up and the election was scheduled to be held on 29.4.2006 and the last date for filing nomination was on 25.4.2006.
As there was no contest, all the office bearers and E.C. Members were elected unanimously, in which the petitioner was elected as a General
Secretary and the result of the said election was communicated to all the Labour Commissioner and other officers including the employer. It is also
the case of the petitioner that in the mean time, those members of the union along with second and third respondents have approached the civil
court by filing O.S. 21 of 2006 challenging the election process. Ultimately, the said suit came to be dismissed as withdrawn on 20.7.2006.
According to the petitioner, the elected members who got elected in the election held on 25.4.2006 were not permitted to take charge and
function as office bearers of the Trade Union because of the rival factions and other disputes. The petitioner has approached the first respondent
for deciding the dispute. The first respondent, Registrar of Trade Unions has taken up the dispute between the petitioner and the third respondent
and after conducting elaborate enquiry and going through the entire records, passed the impugned order directing the parties to approach the civil
court to decide as to who are the properly elected office bearers of the union. The first respondent relied upon the judgment of this Court in 1988
(2) L.L.J. 335 in ONGC Workmen''s Association v. State of West Bengal and Ors.
Mrs. A.V. Bharathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that once the first respondent, Registrar of Trade Unions ceased
of the dispute between the petitioner and the third respondent, it is the duty on his part to decide the issue relating to the holding of the election as
per Section 28 of the Trade Union Act. She would also submit that the petitioner has substantiated his stand by producing various records
regarding the election conducted by the group on 25.4.2006, which was conducted in accordance with law and the first respondent had a legal
obligation to accept the same and recognise the election of the petitioner. The conduct of the first respondent in relegating the powers to the civil
court is the failure on his duty vested on the first respondent. On the other hand, Mr. Chandrasekar, learned Counsel for the third respondent
contended that there is a dispute involved in the present case in respect of the same union and in which the petitioner and the third respondent
claiming for the office bearership. Admittedly, the third respondent was elected as a President in the election dated 4.12.2005 which is for a period
of three years and it is the duty of the petitioner to explain how subsequent election was held on 25.4.2006. Therefore, according to the learned
Counsel for the third respondent, the dispute regarding election on 25.4.2006 between the parties cannot be decided by the Registrar of Trade
Unions either u/s 18 or 28 of the Trade Union Act.
I have heard Mrs.Bharathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. John, learned Counsel for the second respondent employer and Mr.
Chandrasekar, learned Counsel for the third respondent. I have also perused the entire records.
Admittedly, in the election held on 4.12.2005, the third respondent was elected as the President of the Union. It is the case of the petitioner that
the General Body meeting was conducted on 13.4.2006 for the purpose of conducting election and the election was fixed on 29.4.2006. On the
last day for filing nomination i.e. On 25.4.2006, there was no contest and there was unanimous decision for all the office bearers of the petitioner
union, in which, the third respondent was not elected. Therefore, when the dispute was referred to the first respondent, Registrar of Trade Unions,
as it is seen on record that the first respondent had taken steps to resolve the dispute amicably. However, when he came to the conclusion that
there was no possibility of settlement between the parties, he has stated that the dispute can only be decided by the civil court.
Mr. Chandrassekar, learned Counsel for the third respondent also brought to the notice of this Court that subsequently a suit was filed before
the Subordinate Judge, Banruti in O.S. 31 of 2007, on behalf of EID Parry Labour Union, rep. by its President in which the present petitioner is
the first defendant and the issue involved in that suit is about the Subscription amounts collected from the office bearers of the union. A reference to
the above said suit shows that even though the suit is filed for recovery of an amount by plaintiffs, it is stated that defendants 1 and 2 therein have
retained the union members subscription fees and hence the plaintiffs also sought for injunction against the defendants from operating the S.B.
Account of the E.I.D. Parry Labour Union, Nellikuppam. A reading of the plaint shows that the suit is filed for recovery of amount which
represents the subscription amounts collected from the employees. The decision in the suit also involves incidentally as who is entitled to collect and
hold subscription of the Trade Union. Therefore, as contended by the learned Counsel for the third respondent, a decision has to be arrived at as
to who is the legally elected office bearer of the union.
Admittedly, the petitioner herein has taken notice in the suit. Therefore, I do not see any reason for the petitioner to challenge the order of the
first respondent. The learned Counsel for the third respondent also would submit that the third respondent continues to be the President of the
Union and in fact at his instance, settlement was arrived between the union and the management, the second respondent, and the petitioner is also
receiving the benefits of the settlement. A reference to Section 28 of the Trade Union Act shows that it contemplates the power of the Registrar to
receive the entire returns. Section 28 states as follows:
Returns (1) There shall be sent annually to the Registrar, on or before such date as may be prescribed, a general statement, audited in the
prescribed manner, of all receipts and expenditure of every registered Trade Union during the year ending on the 31st day of (December) next
preceding such prescribed date, and of the assets and liabilities of the Trade Union existing on such 31st day of (December). The statement shall
be prepared in such form and shall comprise such particulars as may be prescribed
(2) Together with the general statement there shall be sent to the Registrar a statement showing all changes of (office bearers) made by the Trade
Union during the year to which the general statement refers, together also with a copy of the rules of the Trade Union corrected upto the date of
the despatch thereof to the Registrar.
(3) A copy of every alteration made in the rules of a registered Trade Union shall be sent to the Registrar within fifteen days of the making of the
alteration.
(4) For the purpose of examining the documents referred to in Sub-sections (1), (2) and (3), the Registrar, or any officer authorised by him, by
general or special order, may at all reasonable times inspect the certificate of registration, account books, registers, and other documents, relating
to a Trade Union, at its registered office or may require their production at such place as he may specify in this behalf, but no such place shall be a
distance of more than ten miles from the registered office of a Trade Union.
Therefore, the reference to the said Section shows that it is not the jurisdiction vested with the Registrar of the Trade Union to decide the dispute
between the two rival groups of the Trade Union. The contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that u/s 18, there is immunity
from civil suit has no application on the facts of this case since it bars suits only in respect of settlement of disputes through unions regarding the
service conditions and the contract of employment. Whereas in cases of dispute between rival groups of a Trade Union, as to who is the properly
elected office bearer, it is the civil court which alone can decide on appreciation of evidence.
This Court while deciding about the scope of the Registrar of Trade Unions, u/s 28 of the Trade Union Act about the right of a person to
represent the union, in Kovai Periyar Maavatta Dravida Panchalai Thozhilalar Munnetra Sangam rep. By its General Secretary S. Doraisamy,
Coimbatore v. Commissioner of Labour (Registrar of Trade Unions) Chennai and Ors. reported in 2003 (4) LLN 115 has held that Section 28 of
the Trade Union Act does not confer any quasi-judicial power to the Registrar of Trade Union to decide the dispute between the rival claims and
such decision could be decided only by a civil court. The relevant portion in the above said judgment rendered by P.K. Misra, J. is as follows:
It is now well settled that the provisions contained in Section 28 of the Trade Unions Act do not confer any quasi-judicial power to decide the
dispute between the rival claimants and even if any decision is taken, such a decision does not have any binding force and the dispute between the
rival claimants in a trade union can be decided by a civil Court. Such view has been expressed in R. Murugesan Vs. Union Terrirtory of
Pondicherry and Others, Similar views have been expressed in Fateh Singh Solanki and Ors. v. Rastriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh and Ors. 1993 (2)
L.L.N. 947 Ratan Kumar Dey and Ors. Union of India and Ors. 1991 (2) L.L.N. 506 Bokaro Steel Workers Union and Anr. v. State of Bihar
and Ors. 1995 (1) L.L.N. 1079.
The first respondent while passing the impugned order, has relied upon the judgment reported in 1988 (2) L.L.J. 335 in ONGC Workmen''s
Association v. State of West Bengal and Ors. That case was also relating to election dispute raised u/s 8 and 28 of the Trade Union Act. The
Calcutta High Court held that the Registrar, u/s 8 and 28 of the Act is not performing the quasi-judicial power and therefore, he cannot be allowed
to conduct enquiry about the dispute between the Trade Union. While deciding about the scope of Section 8 and 28, the Calcutta High Court held
that the power of Registrar is restricted to ascertain as to who are the elected office bearers to register their names within the scope and ambit of
Section 8 and 28 of the Trade Unions Act and that apart, he cannot decide the validity or otherwise of the election. The relevant paragraph is
extracted below:
True, the Registrar has power to ascertain who are the elected office bearers to register their names within the scope and ambit of Sections 8 and
28 of the Trade Unions Act. The scope of inquiry to be held within the scope of such provision of law is very much limited. Any order passed by
him must be administrative in nature. He is not deemed to be a quasi-judicial authority to decide any disputed question of fact or law. He has no
authority to ask any of the parties to lead evidences and to give opportunity to the other party to cross-examine any witness. Under this concept of
a limited administrative inquiry, the dispute as raised by the rival parties cannot be set at rest....
Therefore, looking it at any angle, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order of the first respondent in directing the parties to approach
the civil Court to decide the dispute among themselves. In view of the same, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. However, it is made
clear that if the petitioner or any of the parties approach the civil court regarding the validity or otherwise of the election of the Trade Union office
bearers, the civil court shall consider the nature of the case and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible.