@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Sudhanshu Jyoti Mukhopadhya, J.@mdashBoth these cases have been transferred from Patna High Court in terms of the provisions of Bihar
Reorganisation Act, 2000. Common question having been raised and common order contained in letter dated 10th June, 2000, having been
challenged, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
2. As the matter can be disposed of on a short point, it is not necessary to discuss all the facts, claim and counter-claim of the parties, except the
relevant one, as mentioned hereunder. In the Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro, there is a registered Trade Union, known as ''Bokaro Steel Workers
Union'' (Union for short). It has its own constitution and bylaws. The election of Office Bearers is held as per the by-laws, with a life of elected
Office Bearers for about two years and three months. There appears to be some internal rivalry cropped up since 1989-90, while one or other
group claimed to be the validly elected Office Bearers of the Union.
3. The election of Office Bearers of Union held on 5th August, 1987, electing late Bindeshwari Dubey as its President, Late P. N. Tripathy as
Working President and ''H.C.L. Srivastava (Petitioner No. 1 of C.W.J.C. No. 10020 of 2000) as its Joint General Secretary. The Union
rivalry/dispute started in 1989-90, before the death of Bindeshwari Dubey. According to Petitioner Ram Chandra Singh and another of C.W.J.C.
No. 8351 of 2000, H.C.L. Snvastava formed a separate group and proclaimed to have got election on 24th October, 1989, as per claim of his
group to be victorious. Another rival group under the leadership of one P.N. Tripathy also proclaimed to have not election oursuance of election,
held on 24th August, 1990, whose group claimed to be victorious.
4. On the other hand, according to Petitioner H.C.L. Srivastava and another of C.W.J.C. No. 10020 of 2000, he was elected as Joint General
Secretary on 24th October, 1989. A tripartite settlement was also signed on 23rd August, 1990 between the management on one side and late
P.N. Tripathy and Petitioner H.C.L. Srivastava on the other side. According to H.C.L. Srivastava. late P. N. Tripathy formed a separate group
and prepared take list of Office Bearers on 25th August, 1990, purported to have been prepared on the basis of so called election, held on 24th
August, 1990.
5. Petitioner H.C.L. Srivastava and others preferred a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 2004 of 1990(R), challenging the election purported to
be held on 24th August.! 990 and a letter dated 15th September, 1990, issued by the Registrar, Trade Union, Bihar, whereby, the management of
Bokaro Steel Plant, was intimated of such election of Office Bearers. The High Court while did not interfere with the election, asked the Petitioner
to challenge and raise dispute in a civil court of competent jurisdiction.
6. Thereafter, Title Suit No. 120 of 1990 was preferred by H.C.L. Srivastava group in the court of learned Munsif, Chas impleading P.N. Tripathy
group, management of Steel Authority of India Ltd., Bokaro Steel Plant, Registrar, Trade Union. Bihar and others as Defendants.
7. It appears that P.N. Tripathy group amended the contitution and held election on 27th May, 1992, during pendency of the suit. Subsequently, in
1993 Bindeshwari Dubey expired and in 1994 P.N. Tripathy himself expired. In their places one C.S.C. Dubey (Respondent in both the cases)
claimed to have been taken over as new President in 1993 and as General Secretary in 1994. The Registrar, Trade Union, Bihar requested
General Secretary, I.N. T.U.C., to conduct election of Office Bearers of Union in presence of Deputy Level Commissioner, Bokaro Steel City, by
his letter dated 25th July, 1994. Shri C.S. Choubey (Respondent) in the capacity of General Secretary, Bokaro Steel Workers Union, challenged
the letter of Registrar, Trade Union, dated 25th July, 1994 before the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 6834 of 1994, Bokaro Steel Workers
Union v. Stute of Bihar 1995 (1) Pat LJR 400, A Division Bench of Patna High Court, taking into consideration the Patna High Court''s decision in
the case of Mukund Ram Tanti Vs. S.I. Raza, Registrar, Trade Unions and Others, and Section 28 of Trade Unions Act, 1926, held that the
Registrar, Trade Union, can only hold an enquiry for the purpose of maintaining and updating the register and 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. The Registrar, Trade Union
cannot recognize any person or group of persons as duly elected Office Bearer(s) nor can direct to hold election of Office Bearers under his or his
nominee''s supervision. Such disputes can only be decided in a suit before a Civil Court.
8. So far as Title Suit No. 120 of 1990 is concerned, it was decided vide judgment and decree dated 1st March, 1995 by the learned Additional
Munsif, Chas, and the alleged election held on 24th August, 1990 as well as the letter of Registrar, Trade Union, Bihar dated 15th September,
1990 were declared illegal, invalid and inoperative. One Shri D.K. Choubey and others moved in title Appeal No. 5 of 1995 against the judgment
and decree aforesaid. Wherein, prayer for stay of operation of judgment and decree was rejected.
9. The Additional Registrar, Trade Union, thereafter, issued a communication dated 11 th January, 1996, addressed to the Managing Director,
Steel Authority of India Ltd. Bokaro, and informed that in view of decision in Title Suit No. 120 of 1990 and the High Court''s order in C.W.J.C.
No. 6834 of 1994, the election of Union, held on 5th August, 1987, was found valid. The aforesaid letter was challenged by Respondent C.S.
Dubey in the capacity of General Secretary, Bokaro Steel Workers Union, before the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 997 of 1996 Bokaro
Steel Workers Union v. State of Bihar 2000 (1) Lab LJ 117 (Pat). The Court again held that the Registrar, Trade Union, has no authority to
adjudicate as to which group of Office Bearers was validly elected nor he can direct Office Bearers to hold election or nominate his nominee to
supervise election, such dispute can only be resorted to be means of civil suit.
10. It appears that the Registrar, Trade Union, thereafter issued the impugned letter No. 1041/2000 dated 10th June, 2000 and communicated the
Management, Bokaro Steel Plant, the list of Office Bearers of Bokaro Steel Workers Union. Subsequently a corrigendum letter was issued vide
Memo No. 2325 dated 12th June, 2000 which has also been challenged by the Petitioners.
11. In the opening paragraph of letter dated 10th June, 2000 the registrar, Trade Union intimated the Management, the list of elected Office
Bearers of Union as per election hold on 1 st June, 2000 and further mentioned that those elected members have been recognised by him. In the
closing line, he requested the Management of recognize those elected Office Bearers. By corrigendum letter dated 12th June, 2000 the closing
sentence of requesting the Management to give recognition, was deleted and in its place ''the list of elected Office Bearers for information and
necessary action'' was substituted.
12. The stand of Petitioner H.C.L. Srivastava group and Petitioner Ram Chandra Singh and others before this Court is same that the impugned
letter dated 10th June, 2000 read with corrigendum letter dated 12th June, 2000 is without jurisdiction the Registrar, Trade Union having no
power to determine the dispute relating to elected members of a Trade Union.
13. Mr. Kanth, senior counsel for Respondent C.S. Dubey group, while accepted that the Registrar, Trade Union, has no authority to adjudicate
as to which group of Office Bearers was validly elected, submitted that the Registrar, Trade Union, by impugned letter dated 10th June, 2000 has
merely enquired about the legality of new election for the purpose of maintaining a proper register, which has been intimated to the Management. It
was pointed out that there being certain mistake in the earlier letter dated 10th June, 2000 such mistake having been realized, was corrected vide
corrigendum tetter dated 12th June, 2000.
14. Section 28th of the Trade Union Act, 1926 relates to returns. The said provision fell for consideration before a Division Bench of Patna High
Court in the case of Mukund Ram Tanti Vs. S.I. Raza, Registrar, Trade Unions and Others, , wherein, the Court held:
That on being informed about the election of the new office bearers, the Registrar is within his right to ascertain whether they were legally elected
so as to be recorded in the register maintained for the purpose and to be ground for compliance of the provisions of the Act. In other words, the
Registrar has full jurisdiction to enquire about the legality of the new election for the purpose of maintaining a proper register showing the names of
the office bearers who may be at the relevant time required to comply with the provisions of the Act or to be dealt with in accordance therewith. In
this particular case the order of the Registrar clearly shows that the election of the new office bearers was not accepted by him to be legal only for
the purpose of maintenance of records in his office to facilitate the administration under the Act.
(Emphasis added)
15. In the case of present Union ''Bokaro Steel Workers Union'', the High Court in the judgment, Bokaro Steel Workers Union v. State of Bihar
1995.(1) Pat LJR 400, came of the following conclusion:
(i) In a dispute 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 registrar as required to be maintained u/s 8 of the Act.
(ii) His decision in this regard shall neither confer any right on anypersonor 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 recognize 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
supervision or under the supervision of his nominee.
(v) In the absence of any provision in the Trade Unions Act, any dispute of his can only be resolved by means of 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 Unions Act and to take steps to remedy it which has
been long overdue.
16. In the case of present Bokaro Steel Workers'' Union and Another Vs. State of Bihar and Others, same finding was given that the Registrar has
no authority to adjudicate as to which group of Office Bearers was validly elected. If the impugned letter dated 1 Oth June, 2000 is read with
corrigendum letter dated 12th June, 2000, though nothing illegality can be alleged so far as the closing part of the said letter is concerned, but the
fact remains that in the opening portion, the Registrar, Trade Union, intimated the Management of its recognition as validly elected office Bearers of
the Union. Such letter cannot be termed to be a mere enquiry by a Registrar, Trade Union, for the purpose of maintaining his register, showing the
names the office Bearers, but amounts to adjudicating the issue as to which group of office Bearers was validly elected, which has been held to be
not permissible by Patna High Court in the cases, as referred above.
17. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned letter dated 10th June, 2000, being without jurisdiction, as also the corrigendum letter dated 12th
June, 2000 are set aside. Both the writ petitions are hereby allowed. However, in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
.jpg)