North Eastern Railway Employees' Union v. Deputy Labour Commissioner/Deputy Registrar of Trade Unions, Gorakhpur
Citation: (2003) 2 LLJ 201
Coram: Single Judge Bench of All H.C. (Before Anjani Kumar, J.)

Facts:
The Allahabad High Court, in this case combined three writ petitions filed by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution and heard and disposed of them by a common judgment. The first writ petition was filed and pleaded for quashing of the order of the Deputy about Commissioner/ Deputy Registrar, Trade Unions, Gorakhpur. It also wanted the Court to direct the Deputy Registrar, Trade Unions, Gorakhpur to recognise and register the newly elected Central Working Committee of the North Eastern Railway Employees Union, by issuing a writ of mandamus.

The petition was filed challenging the order of the Deputy Registrar, Trade Unions, Gorakhpur made under Section 27 of the Trade Unions Act w.r.t. Form J. The order herein made was with respect to the maintenance of the Register of the Office- bearers of the recognised and registered trade unions. The Court dismissed the petition because of it becoming infructuous by efflux of time. The petitioner again approached this Court for recall of the previous order.

Issues:

1. Whether there exists any right to dispute elections of Office-bearers under the Trade Unions Act?
2. Whether the Registrar has authority or power under the Trade Unions Act to direct or supervise the election of the office-bearers and register changes thereof under Form J of the Trade Unions Act?

Arguments on behalf of the Petitioner:

1. The counsel on behalf of the petitioner contended before the High Court that the Deputy Registrar has failed in its duty to recognise the alteration of Office-bearers of the Trade Union after elections and hence pleads the Court for the issuance of the writ of mandamus directing the Deputy Registrar, Trade Unions, Gorakhpur to comply with the same.
    
2. They further argued that the failure of the Registrar to incorporate the alterations made and submitted under Form J amounts to a violation of their right to elect as a constitutional right and hence approached the H.C. under its writ jurisdiction.

Arguments on Behalf of the Respondent:

1. The counsel on behalf of the respondent submitted that since the time period for which the election was conducted had passed hence the petition deserves to be dismissed because of it becoming infructuous by efflux of time.
    
2. They further argued that right to election or to dispute an election is neither a fundamental nor a common law right. Hence, the petitioners do not possess jurisdiction as the alternate remedy of approaching the Civil Court has not yet been exhausted.

Judgment:
The High Court in this case with respect to the first issue held that the Registrar's decision whether to register or refuse to register the alteration in the name of the Office-bearers under Form J of the Trade Unions Act does not require any sort of intrusion by the Court because such refusal or acceptance on part of the Registrar does not in any way affect the rights of the parties to election. Moreover, the parties have full freedom to choose to take up matters relating to their rights and elections to the Civil Court for challenge, via an appeal[1].

Furthermore, the Court also asserted that the power exercised under sections 8 and 28 of the T.U. Act, by the Registrar in respect of registration of alteration of office-bearers or refusal to register the alteration as such under Form J of the Trade Unions Act is merely administrative in nature[2].

With regards to the second issue the High Court gave judgment by placing reliance on the Mukund Ram Tanti vs S.I. Raza, Registrar, Trade[3] and held that any order of the Registrar so made for the purpose of maintaining and updating the register as according to provisions under section 8 of the Trade Unions Act, does not in any manner vest or divest any right to any person or group.

The Court further reiterated that the Registrar has been conferred with no power or authority to either pass any order directing the Labour Deptt. /Employer or to advise them in the recognition of the person as the Office-bearer after elections have been conducted. Moreover, the Registrar cannot direct the supervision of or holding of elections for the post of office-bearer in any Trade Union[4].

The Court then relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jyoti Basu & Others vs Debi Ghosal & Others[5], which had previously held that there exists no fundamental right or common law right to elect or right to dispute an election available to citizens. Both of these rights are statutory rights. Hence if the Statute falls short for enumerating and conferring provisions for right to elect/be elected or to dispute an election, these rights become circumscribed by statutory limitations.

Since, the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution does not qualify in this case, the High Court, in sync with the afore-cited decisions, dismissed the Writ Petition as the alternate remedy in casu has not been exhausted i.e., filing a suit in the civil court.

Ratio:
The primary reasoning adopted by the All H.C. in this case for the dismissal of the writ petitions filed solidified, essentially after the analysis of the judgement of the Patna High Court case[6]. The High Court asserted after due perusal of Sections 8 and 28 of the trade Unions Act, that all the rights pertaining to holding of elections of a trade union is circumscribed by the aforesaid Act itself. The rights conferred herein, if any, are neither fundamental or common law rights.

Furthermore, the Act itself does not lay down any express procedure or machinery to be followed for disputing any election so convened under the Act and hence the Registrar has been given no authority or power to address or to adjudicate upon the grievances or challenges of the parties so made after an election has been conducted. The Registrar's powers under Sections 8 and 28 are wholly administrative in nature and extend only to register of any alteration of Office-bearers whose purpose again is to ease communication and ensure compliance of the general provisions of the Act.

Analysis of Important Principles in the Judgement:
The High Court in this case analyzed, interpreted, and determined the scope of Sections 8 and 28 of the Trade Unions Act in relation to the power and authority of the Registrar of Trade Unions w.r.t. maintenance of register of Office-bearers and any alteration thereof. Additionally, it also analyzed the power and authority of the Registrar in the holding and superintendence of the elections in the trade union.

Section 8 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926, states that the Registrar shall register and maintain the Trade Union in a Register after due compliance of all procedural requirements have been fulfilled. Section 28 (2) of the Act, states that all the trade unions are supposed to intimate the Registrar about changes of Office-bearers made by the T.U.

The Court took aid and placed reliance on the Patna H.C.'s decision in the case of Mukund Ram Tanti v. S.I. Raza, Registrar, Trade [7], and arrived at certain conclusions after due analysis, w.r.t. Sections 8 and 28 (2) of the Trade Unions Act, 1927. It stated that the Registrar has the power to hold enquiry u/s 8 of the Act when there's a dispute between two parties contesting an election for the post of office-bearer. This enquiry however is limited as it can be made only for the purpose of maintenance and updation of the Register.

Therefore, the registrar's use of such power does not vest nor divest any right of the persons or group of persons. It further, asserted that the Registrar u/s 8 and 28 exercises a power that is purely administrative and any person aggrieved by such exercise may approach the Civil Court for remedy since the Act itself does not lay down any mechanism for redressal in such scenarios.

It concluded by stating that the Registrar's decision in regard of sections 8 and 28 does not have the authority to recognise or treat any person as the rightful office-bearer after the conduction of elections, and neither can he issue any direction or advise the Govt. Deptt. in the appointment of the Office-bearer of a Trade Union.

There however exists a need to establish a machinery for the adjudication of dispute arising out of elections of Office-bearer of a trade union as the alternative remedy herein i.e., approaching the Civil Court is too time-consuming and unsatisfactory.
Other Supporting Case Laws:

1. Ram Chandra Singh v. State of Bihar[8]: The H.C. held that the registrar under exercise of administrative power u/s 8 and 28 does not have the effect of adjudicating upon the rights of any person and it does not vest or divest any right of anr. person.
    
2. Chaudhary Raj Kumar Singh and Anr. vs State of U.P. and Others[9]: The registrar had accepted the alteration made in Office-bearer of trade union u/s 28 of the Act. The H.C. held that this exercise was not of a judicial or quasi-judicial character and is merely done for the purpose of maintaining records. Persons aggrieved may challenge the legality of such exercise via a civil suit.
    
3. North Eastern Railway Mazdoor Union, Rail Mazdoor Bhawan, Gorakhpur v. Registrar Trade Unions, Kanpur[10]: The Court held that the decision of the Registrar under Form J of the Trade Unions Act is purely of administrative nature and is not judicial or quasi-judicial.

Conclusion:
The Allahabad H.C. in this case dismissed the writ petitions and held that since the right to dispute an election in the trade union is neither a fundamental nor a statutory right[11] and since the T.U. Act, does not provide any machinery for the same, therefore, any person aggrieved can challenge the decision of the Registrar made u/s 8 and 28 of the T.U. Act by filing a civil suit for remedy.

The H.C further held that the powers exercised under sections 8 and 28 of the T.U. Act, by the Registrar in respect of registration of alteration of office-bearers or refusal to register the alteration as such under Form J of the Trade Unions Act is merely administrative in nature[12]. The Court relied on its decision made in the Mukund Ram Tanti case[13] and dismissed the writ petitions.

End-Notes:

1. North Eastern Railway Mazdoor Union, Rail Mazdoor Bhawan, Gorakhpur v. Registrar of Trade Unions, Kanpur, 1969 L&IC 209; 1995 (71) FLR 257.
2. 1995 (71) FLR 257
3. Ram Chandra Singh v. State of Bihar, 2002 (94) FLR 1153.
4. AIR 1982 SC 983
5. 1995 (71) FLR 257
6. Supra note 3.
7. 2002 (94) FLR 1153
8. (2015) 5 All LJ 134
9. 1969 L&IC 209
10. Supra note 5.
11. North Eastern Railway Mazdoor Union, Rail Mazdoor Bhawan, Gorakhpur v. Registrar of Trade Unions, Kanpur, 1969 L&IC 209; 1995 (71) FLR 257.
12. Supra note 5.