Indian Explosives Workers Union and Another vs State of Bihar and Others

S.K. Jha and L.P.N. Shahdeo, JJ.—A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioners. Let it be kept on record.

Mr. B.C. Ghosh, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the Ragistrar, Trade Unions, Bihar respondent No. 2 has no jurisdiction to hold any election of the two rival Trade Unions in question and has, therefore, challenged Annexure-13, a communication from the Registrar (Respondent No. 2) to furnish certain informations for holding of due election, This is in the background of an earlier petition filed by the petitioners in this Court which has been registered as C.W.J.C. No. 1262 of 1988 (R) in which by an order dated 25-7-1989 a Bench of this Court had directed that during the pendency of that application, no independent Board shall function in any manner but the Registrar of the Trade Unions may, if he thinks fit, discharge statutory duty in regard to two rival Trade Unions. That writ application is, however, still pending. Mr. Ghosh submits that the Registrar of the Trade Unions respondent No. 2 cannot be said to have discharged any statutory duty in issuing Annexure 13.

Mr. Ghosh relies upon the provisions of Section 28 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 for the purpose of showing that there is no such statutory power or duty in the Registrar which he can exercise or perform and for that purpose he also placed reliance on a Bench decision of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2072 of 1974 in the case of Kishori Prasad Mahto v. State of Bihar and Ors.

We are afraid, there is no force in his contention. The Supreme Court in the case of North Eastern Railway Employees Union and Others Vs. IIIrd Additional District Judge, Farukhabad and Others, has held that the Registrar of Trade Unions is the authority charged with the duty of administering the provisions of the Trade Unions Act. Nothing his been shown to us in the Act which can be said to detract from the generality of what the Supreme Court has observed in that case.

We do not find any merit in this application which is, accordingly, dismissed.