Indo Asahi Glass Mazdoor Sangh vs State of Bihar and Others

R.N. Sahay, J.—The Petitioner is a registered trade union affiliated to I.N.T.U.C. This application relates to dispute between two groups of the Union which culminated in passing of the order impugned dated 14.2.1994 contained in Annexure 1 by the Registrar of Trade Union.

The only legal question that arises for consideration is as to whether the direction of the Registrar of Trade Union (Annexure-1) is without jurisdiction or he was competent to issue such direction in exercise of his powers under the Trade Union Act.

The Petitioner''s case is that the Union is recognised Union of Indo Asahi Glass Company Ltd. since last 20 years. The President of the Union was Sri. Damodar Pandey. The Union has its own Constitution and according to Clause 15 of the Constitution, the general meeting of the Union is to be held in the month of June every year to elect office bearers and Other members of the Executive Committees

The President of the Union decided that election for 1993-94 of the Union will be held on 6.6.93. The Management allotted Community Hall for the purpose. The election was held as per the schedule. On 7.6.93, the President of the Union in his capacity as General Secretary of INTUC Informed the Vice President (Works) of the Indo Asahi Glass Co. that in the election held, the persons mentioned in his letter (Annexure-3) have been elected as office bearers and members of the Executive Committee. He requested for co-operation by the Management. It is the Petitioner''s case that after the election, the Management and the elected office bearers of the Union held discussion on various demands of the workmen and also complained to the Management on 26.7.93 about the violation of the various labour laws by the Management. Copy of the demand was also sent to the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Hazaribagh.

On 30.7.93, the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Hazaribagh wrote to the Vice President, Works, of the Company drawing his attention with regard to the complaint made by the Union General Secretary Sri. Sudhir Kumar Verma. The Management was asked to reply with regard to the complaint. The problem was discussed on several dates with no results.

It appears that on 20.6.93, the Officer in-Charge of Bhadai Nagar Police Station filed two reports before the Sub-divisional Officer, Ramgarh for initiation of proceedings u/s 107 and 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against Sri. Uma Bachan Tiwary (Respondent No. 7) who was claiming himself to be the General Secretary of the Union and 14 others. It was stated in the report that the Union was actively working under Sri. Damodar Pandey, ex-M.P. On 4.6.93 Sri. Chandra Shekhar Dubey formed a rival Union under his Presidentship. The police reported that office bearers were elected on 6.6.93 in which Sudhir Kumar Verma was elected as General Secretary. The other group led by Sri. Dubey declared Dubey to be the President and Respondent No. 7. Uma Bachan Tiwary as General Secretary. The report was completely in favour of the Petitioner-Union and that is why the police recommended for action only against the separate group formed by Respondents 6 and 7. The Officer in-Charge of Bhadai Nagar Police Station considering the gravity of the situation recommended promulgation of prohibitory orders u/s 144 Code of Criminal procedure against both the parties. The Petitioner has alleged that faction led by Respondent No. 7 aimed at disturbing industrial peace and harmony. They even tried to assault the executives of the Management, but due to the intervention of the security, the attempt was foiled.

According to the counter affidavit filed by Respondent No. 7 a meeting of the Executive Committee was held on 2.4.93 pursuant to direction of Sri. Damodar Pandey dated 7.2.93 calling upon Sri. Santosh Kumar, Secretary, to hold fresh election. It was decided to hold the election on 4.6.93. But before that i.e. on 20.4.93 another meeting of the Executive Committee of the Union was held wherein the name of 6th Respondent Chandra Shekhar Dubey was proposed for the post of President by the members of the Executive Committee. Thereafter, on 4.6.93, a general body meeting was held for electing all the members as well as office bearers of the Union. In the said meeting about 700 members had participated and they elected Sri. Chandra Shekhar Dubey as President and the 7th Respondent as the General Secretary of the Union. The general body meeting authorised Sri. Dubey and Sri. Tiwary, Respondent No. 7, to elect members of the Executive committee as well as other office bearers of the Union. The proceedings of the meeting held on 4.6.93 has been annexed as Annexure R-7/C-1. According to Respondent No. 7, the then President of the I.N.T.U.C., Bihar late P.N. Tripathy, to which Indo Asahi Glass Mazdoor Sangh is affiliated, wrote to the Registrar, Trade Union, Bihar, informing him about the aforesaid election and giving details of the office bearers of the Union. He also informed that the new office bearers will start work with immediate effect and they will be treated as valid office bearers of Indo Asahi Glass Mazdoor Sangh. It was further stated in the said letter that all the previous letters written by anybody should be treated as null and void after 4.6.93 i.e. the date on which election was announced. This letter has been annexed as Annexure R/7-D to the counter affidavit.

The Labour Commissioner-cum-Registrar of Trade Union, Bihar vide his letter dated 30th August, 1993, wrote to the General Secretary, I.N.T.U.C., New Delhi informing him that intra-Union rivalry had cropped up in the, Indo Asahi Glass Mazdoor Sangh and it had separated into two factions. One of the factions held its election on 4.6.93 while the other had held election on 6.6.93. The Registrar, therefore, requested to get the matter verified and enquired into and to inform as to which set of office bearers will be treated as validly elected. The letter of the Registrar has been annexed as R-7/E to the counter affidavit.

The General Secretary of the I.N.T.U.C. on receipt of the aforesaid letter wrote to the General Secretary of the Bihar I.N.T.U.C. to enquire and report in the matter. The General Secretary of the Bihar I.N.T.U.C. vide letter dated 4th October, 1993 (Annexure R-7/G) requested the Secretary, I.N.T.U.C. Delhi to enquire into the matter. Sri. Badri Singh, Secretary, Bihar I.N.T.U.C. conducted a detailed enquiry and submitted a report to the General Secretary, I.N.T.U.C. on 18.10.93 (Annexure R-7/H). According to his report, the election held on 4.6.93 was as per the Constitution of the Union.

It was submitted on behalf of Respondents 6 and 7 that Badri Singh had personally contacted most of the members of the Union in the Union Office during enquiry and all of them had confirmed about the election held on 4.6.93 and had stated that the same was in the interest of the organisation and the workers. As regards election of the Mazdoor Sangh held on 6.6.93 the reply was in the negative. It was submitted that from the aforesaid report of Sri. Badri Singh it was clear that no election was held by Sri. Damodar Pandey and the election was held by Sri. Santosh Ram, General Secretary at the instance of Sri. Damodar Pandey and in this election Sri. Chandra Shekhar Dubey Was elected as President and Sri. Tiwary was elected as General Secretary. The General Secretary, I.N.T.U.C. Bihar informed the General Secretary, I.N.T.U.C. New Delhi that the election conducted by Santosh Ram was proper and there was no irregularity at all and hence election of Sri Chandra Shekhar Dubey and Tiwary was valid. Thereafter the working body of the Bihar I.N.T.U.C. held meeting on 5.11.93 at Dhanbad and it was resolved that the election conducted by Sri. Santosh Ram was proper and election of Sri. Chandra Shekhar Dubey as President and Sri. Tiwary as General Secretary was valid. The General Secretary, I.N.T.U.C. by letter dated 2nd February, 1994 informed the Registrar, Trade Union, Bihar, (Annexure R-7/K) that the office bearers mentioned in the said letter are the real representatives of the Union. In the light of the aforesaid enquiry report and Other correspondence, the Registrar, Trade Union, Bihar informed the Management of Indo Asahi Glass Co. about the office bearers of the Indo Asahi Glass Mazdoor Sangh.

It was contended on behalf of Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 that actually the Registrar had not decided the intra-Union dispute. The old office bearers ceased to be office bearers after Sri. Dubey was elected as President. It was submitted that since the election of new set up of office bearers has been found to be valid by the Registrar, they are now authorised to hold discussion with the Management.

Sri. P.S. Dayal, counsel for the new office bearers strongly submitted that the Petitioner is not entitled to a writ as prayed since it cannot by submitted that Registrar of the Trade Union has no power under the Trade Union Act to decide about the validity of election of office bearers of the Union. Right to hold enquiry exists only in the cases of dispute between rival Unions and the Registrar is bound to come to a decision in order to make necessary change in the Register as contemplated by Section 28(2) of the Trade Union Act.

The Petitioners have replied to the counter affidavit filed by Respondent No. 7 in which many new facts have been introduced. It has been stated in paragraph 10 of the reply that Sri. Santosh Ram, General Secretary, was directed by the President on 7.2.93 to hold fresh election in view of the fact that the members approached him for the same. The direction of the President was not obeyed by Sri. Santosh Ram. On receiving various complaints from the members of the Union, he himself decided to call for a general meeting of the Union to complete the process of election. He issued an office order on 1.4.93 that in view of the pending election, the Executive Committee shall remain suspended as they have collectively agreed not to go in for any election and no notice was issued to that effect. After the Executive Committee was suspended, the President informed the members of the Union calling an Annual General meeting on 6.6.93 to elect the office bearers and Executive Committee members. The election was scheduled to be held at 5.30 p.m. and it commenced at 6 p.m. in the Community Hall. Sri. Pandey was re-elected as President and Sri. Suresh Ram as General Secretary and Others office bearers as contained in Annexure-3. The notice of the proceeding was given to the appropriate authorities including the Management. The Management recognised the Petitioner-Union represented by Sri. Damodar Pandey as validly elected office bearers.

The Petitioner has challenged the election held by the rival group as unconstitutional. According to Petitioner Central Executive Committee was suspended by the President and as such they had no authority to hold the election. Consequently the decision for holding election on 4.3.93 was ultra vires, illegal and void. Sri. Dubey was selected as President of the Union at the instance of Sri. Tiwary. The documents filed in the counter affidavit are alleged to be concocted and manufactured documents. It was submitted that the central organization has no power to decide as to who was the validly elected office bearers and the action of the Registrar in accepting the report of the General Secretary, I.N.T.U.C., New Delhi has vitiated his decision. It has been submitted that the Registrar has acted on ex parte evidence without giving notice of hearing to the Petitioner-Union.

The Management has also disputed the facts stated in the counter affidavit. The Management has supported the case of the Petitioner. It has alleged that Sri. Dubey was nominated as President by the Executive Committee and not elected by the general body. It was also pointed out that the Registrar of the Trade Union without any request from any body wrote letter to the Central INTUC. It was further pointed out that the Deputy Labour Commissioner had recognised Sri. Sudhir Kumar Verma as General Secretary and written letter to the Management and as such the Management recognised the election held on 6.6.93.

In Kishori Mahto v. The State of Bihar (C.W.J.C. 2072/74), the order of the Deputy Registrar, Trade Union directing fresh election to be held because of dispute having arisen between two groups of office bearers of the Union was held illegal. The learned Judges relying on N.E. Rly. Mazdoor Union v. Registrar, Trade Union (1969 (2) L.I.C. 214) held that the Registrar had no power to order election. Beg, J. as his Lordship then was, held that on reading Section 8 with Section 28 of the Act, it appear that Registrar exercises only administrative function. He can no doubt undertake reasonable enquiry to discover whether alteration in the record is in conformity with the actual facts and rules. He can hold only summary enquiry.

In 1968 (74) FLJ 89 it was held that duty for maintaining record was cast upon the Registrar. It, therefore, follows that he has got the necessary power to ascertain for his own purpose which set of office bearers has been validly elected to represent the Union. These powers are ancillary to the main power given to the Registrar under the Act. But it was held that communication of his decision that new set of office bearers is true representative of the Union is outside the purview of the Act.

In 1976 (2) LabL.J. 435 (Mad) dispute arose as to who were validly and legally elected set of office bearers. It was held by Madras High Court that in such a situation, the Registrar can enter into a limited enquiry to make necessary correction in the Register but not being a election court or Tribunal, his enquiry is not binding on parties who can fight out their case in court.

In Mukund Ram Tanti Vs. S.I. Raza, Registrar, Trade Unions and Others, Ramaswamy, C.J. and Choudhury, J., held that Registrar for the purpose of the Act has to maintain an upto-date Register showing the names of the office bearers existing at the relevant time. Without maintaining such Register with names of new office bearers substituted for the old ones, the Registrar cannot be expected to say whether the provisions of the Act have been legally complied with. In substituting the names of new office bearers, the Registrar is, therefore, to find if those office bearers were legally elected because if the election is not legal, there may be doubt whether he could be prosecuted for failure to submit returns. It was further held that on being informed about the election of new office bearers, the Registrar is to ascertain whether they were legally elected so as to be recorded in the Register maintained for the purpose and to be bound 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 with 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. The decision of the Registrar, that election in a particular case was not legal and that old office bearers shall continue, was held to be in accordance with law.

The decisions referred to above no doubt recognise the authority of the Registrar, Trade Union to undertake reasonable enquiry to discover whether alteration in the Register he is to record is in conformity with actual fact. This power is vested u/s 28 of the Trade Union Act. But here the approach adopted by the Registrar in ascertaining the true state of affairs with regard to the election of the office bearers of Indo Asahi Glass Mazdoor Sangh, is clearly objectionable. He has allowed himself to be influenced by outside authorities and the enquiry was virtually ex parte and one sided. No opportunity was given to the Petitioner and the Management to place their cases.

The decision of the Registrar was totally dependent on the report of the Joint Secretary, I.N.T.U.C. The Registrar ought not to have acted on ex parte evidence and without notice to the, Petitioner and the Management. The impugned order of the Registrar is therefore clearly illegal and without jurisdiction and, therefore, must be quashed. The application is accordingly allowed. The Registrar is directed to make fresh enquiry in the matter if he so desires after notice to the concerned parties and decide the matter in accordance with the decisions referred to in the judgment. There shall be no order as to costs.

P.K. Deb, J.

I agree.