ORDER 1. This petition has been filed on behalf of the North-Eastern Railway Mazdoor Union by Shri Ved Prakash Sinha claiming to be the General Secretary of the North-Eastern Railway Mazdoor Union. The petitioner questions the validity of an inquiry pending before the Registrar of Trade Unions, U. P., Opposite Party No. 1, for alterations to be made in the Register in Form B, prescribed by Rule-1 of the U. P. Regulations promulgated in 1927. The register maintained in prescribed form under Section 8 of the Trade Unions Act evidences the fact that the trade union is registered. A certificate of registration is issued under Section 9 of the Act. Proceedings for the withdrawal or cancellation of a certificate of registration on the ground of fraud or mistake or cessation of a trade union or wilful contravention of the Act are provided for in S. 10 of the Act. There is an appeal under S. 11 of the Act against the refusal of the Registrar to register a trade union or decision to withdraw or cancel a certificate of registration of a trade union. 2. The Act, however, does not provide for any adjudication on a dispute between rival individuals or groups claiming to represent a particular trade union. "All that is . provided for in the Act is that a return shall be made under Section 28 annually showing all changes of officers made by the trade union during the year to which the general statement refers". This statement has to he accompanied by a copy of the pules of the trade minion corrected up to date. Any changes made in the rules of a registered trade union have also to be intimated to the Registrar within fifteen days front the date of alteration. The statement in prescribed form, containing specified particulars, has to be filed on or before a prescribed date. It is, therefore, clear that, although the Registrar is invested with quasi-judicial powers so far as registration of trade unions or cancellation of such registration is concerned the Registrar has only an administrative duty to record and enter in it register such changes in the office-bearers and in the rules as may appear to have taken ace during a particular year. There is no provision of the Act giving the Registrar any power to hold a full-fledged quasi-judicial Inquiry into the validity of any election of office-bearers by going into seriously con tested questions of fact. 3. The proceeding, against which the petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition to be issued against the Registrar of Trade Unions was occasioned by the filing of two conflict forms. A copy of the Form J which was filed up and sent by each group to the Registrar is Annexure G to the petition. It is the form prescribed by the U. P. Trade Unions Regulation 17-A which was added by Notification No. 5071 (LL) (i) XXXVI- (9)-256 (LL)-62 dated 12-2-1964 in the U .P. Gazette published on February 22, 1964. This notification was issued by the Governor of Uttar Pradesh under Section 29 of the Act and shows that the following amendment was sought to be made in the Regulations made by the U. P. Government:- "Intimation regarding any change in the officers of a registered trade union shall be sent in duplicate in Form j to the Registrar within a week of such change taking place. The Registrar shall, within thirty days and under intimation to time Secretary of the Trade Union concerned, record the change in the Register of Trade Unions maintained Wider Section 8 of the Act unless he has reason to believe that the change has not been made in the manner provided in the registered rules of the Trade Union." 4. Both sides had thus filed conflicting statements in Form j before the Registrar, Trade Unions, Opposite Party No. 1. The form filed on behalf of the petitioner, group was based neon an alleged election at the Twelth Annual Conference said to have been held at Gonda on Sill and 9th April, 1967. The form sent by the rival group, to which Shri Kanhaiya Lal Gupta. Opposite Party No. 2, belongs. was based on Twelfth Annual Conference of the Union alleged to have been held at Garhara on April 9, 1967 and the office-bearers mentioned in the form submitted on behalf of the rival group were shown as the duly elected office-bearers of the trade union concerned. Opposite Party No. 2, belongs. was based on Twelfth Annual Conference of the Union alleged to have been held at Garhara on April 9, 1967 and the office-bearers mentioned in the form submitted on behalf of the rival group were shown as the duly elected office-bearers of the trade union concerned. It is because of this conflict between the versions of the 2 contending parties that the Registrar had issued notices to both sides which ran as follows: "Whereas the constitution of N. E. Railway Mazdoor Union, Gorakhpur (Registration No. 1464 of 1955-50), which is a registered trade union under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, provides for the election of the working committee in the manner laid down therein; And where as there exists in the constitution of the trade union a provision for intimation to the Registrar, Trade Unions of the changes of the working committee in the prescribed form for registration of the changes in the register of trade unions maintained under Section S of the Act; And whereas for the year 1967 two entirely different reports about elected office- bearers of the working committee have been received; the first of these being dated April 9, 1967 and purporting to intimate the changes in the composition of the working committee said to have been brought about as a result of election on April 8, 1967 in the Annual Conference of the Union held at Gonda. The other being also dated April 97 1967, and purporting to intimate the changes in the composition of the working committee said to have been brought about as a result of election on April 9, 1967, in the Annual Conference of the Union held at Garhara; And whereas rival claims have been made for the registration of two different sets of office-bearers; Now, therefore, in order to satisfy as to which or any of the two sets of working committee office-hearers, intimation regarding whose election has been received, were properly elected, the concerned parties are hereby notified that the undersigned would hold enquiries into the matter on September 6 and 7, 1967, commencing 11 a.m. each day in his office at Kanpur. The parties are directed to bring all papers, books, records, documents relevant to the claims and which may be in their possession or under their control, in support of their respective claims." 5. The parties are directed to bring all papers, books, records, documents relevant to the claims and which may be in their possession or under their control, in support of their respective claims." 5. The above-mentioned notice does not mention the particular provision under which the Registrar of Trade Unions had decided to inquire into the claims of the two sides. The counter-affidavit filed by the Registrar, Trade Unions, however, shows that the Registrar purported to exercise the powers conferred upon him by Regulation 17-A of the U. P. Trade Union Regulations set out above. The case set up by the petitioning group is that, after it detailed inquiry held by the Registrar, Trade. Unions, following the Tenth Annual Conference of the Trade Union. held at Bareilly in August 1965, the Registrar had accepted the version of the petitioning group in an order passed on 21-5-1966 of which It copy is attached Annexure A to the petition. It was actually this conference at which the two groups separated each claiming to re- present the union and holding successive conferences at different places. 6. The decision given by the Registrar on 21-5-1966 was challenged in this Court by means of two writ petitions: The first of these was North-Eastern Railway Mazdoor Union v. State of U. P. Writ Petition No. 1941 of 1966 dismissed on 1-3-1967 by Asthana J. on the ground that it had become infractions. Special Appeal No. 122 of 1967 was filed against that decision and is pending in this Court. The second was Jagdish Bharti v. Union of India, Civil Misc. Writ No. 4227 of 1966, dismissed by Satish Chandra J. on 25-9-1967 against which a Special Appeal No. 1086 of 1967 has been filed and admitted. 7. The grievance of the petitioning group before me is that the Registrar, Trade Unions, Opposite Party No. 1, has reopened the matter as it result of undue influence and pressure brought to bear upon him by Shri Prabhu Narain Sinha after he became the Minister of Labour in the Government of Uttar Pradesh which took office early in 1967. 7. The grievance of the petitioning group before me is that the Registrar, Trade Unions, Opposite Party No. 1, has reopened the matter as it result of undue influence and pressure brought to bear upon him by Shri Prabhu Narain Sinha after he became the Minister of Labour in the Government of Uttar Pradesh which took office early in 1967. It was urged on behalf of the petitioning group that there was no ground for the Registrar to reopen what had been decided earlier on 21-5-1966 after which the Eleventh Conference of the Trade Union was held at Mailani in August 1966 and office-bearers elected at the Eleventh Conference by the petitioning side were duly entered on the register. The contention of the petitioners is that the Registrar has a very petitioners jurisdiction to act only on prima facie proof of what is placed before him. It is contended that the previous decision of the Registrar on 21-5-1966 followed by the election of office- bearers at Mailani in August, 1966, whose names were duly entered in the register on 30-3-1967, and the rejection of the writ petitions directed against the decision of the Registrar dated 21-5-1966 together with the Form J based on the election at the Twelfth Annual Conference at Gonda provide sufficient material for the purpose of making entries in the register maintained by the Registrar. The petitioning side urges that the Registrar has no jurisdiction to embark on a wider investigation. 8. It is contended on behalf of the rival group, represented by Shri Kanhaiya Lal Gupta, Opposite Party No. 2, that the decision of 21-5-1966 itself is void as it was taken after an invalid inquiry under Regulation 17-A mentioned above which was ultra vires. It was contended that the rejection of the two writ petitions directed against the order of the Registrar dated 21-5-1966 is not final because special appeals were admitted and are pending against those decisions. 9. The validity of Regulation 17-A of the U. P. Trade Union Regulations was raised before and upheld by my learned brother, Satish Chandra. J. in Civil Misc. Writ No. 4227 of 1966=(1969 Lab IC 205). (All.). A decision of a Division Bench of this Court in I,. II. Sugar Factories Mazdoor Union Pilibhit v. Registrar, Trade Unions, Special Appeal No. 170 of 1956 (All.), was also placed before me. J. in Civil Misc. Writ No. 4227 of 1966=(1969 Lab IC 205). (All.). A decision of a Division Bench of this Court in I,. II. Sugar Factories Mazdoor Union Pilibhit v. Registrar, Trade Unions, Special Appeal No. 170 of 1956 (All.), was also placed before me. There it was observed that the duties of the Registrar in connection with the maintenance of the Register of Trade Unions are purely administrative. The Division Bench did not consider it necessary to decide the question whether the order of the Registrar was without jurisdiction inasmuch as the Registrar had no power to decide which of the two meetings of rival groups had the legal right to elect the office-bearers of the trade union concerned. The Division Bench decided the case on the ground that whatever decision may be given by the Registrar would not affect the legal 'rights of the parties to the dispute which could only be decided in a civil suit. 10. If I were to disagree with the view taken by my learned brother Satish Chandra J. in Jagdish Bharti's case, Civil Misc. Writ No. 4227 of 1966 = 1969 Lab IC 205 (All) (supra), the proper course for me to adopt would be to refer this matter for decision to a larger Bench. But, as I propose to follow the line adopted in the above- mentioned Division Bench decision in L. H. Sugar Factories Mazdoor Union's case, Special Appeal No. 170 of 1956 (All.) (supra), and the view taken by Satish Chandra J. in the concluding portion of his judgment in Jagdish Bharti's rue, Civil Misc. Writ No. 4227 of 1966=(1969 Lab IC 203) (All.), I do not think that reference to a larger Bench, which I seriously considered, making, is really called for in this case. 11. The above-mentioned judgment of Satish Chandra J. in Jagdish Bharti's case, Civil Misc. Writ No. 4227 of 1966 =, (1969 Lab IC 205) (All) (supra(, can be split np into two halves. The first portion deals with the validity of two notifications. The rele- vant part of the first notification dated 16-1-1941 (published in the Gazette of India, D/48-1-1911, Part, p. 108, Vol. Writ No. 4227 of 1966 =, (1969 Lab IC 205) (All) (supra(, can be split np into two halves. The first portion deals with the validity of two notifications. The rele- vant part of the first notification dated 16-1-1941 (published in the Gazette of India, D/48-1-1911, Part, p. 108, Vol. II), was in the following terms: No. L-3006.-in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 124 of the Government of India Act, 1933, the Governor-General-in-Council is pleased, with effect from the Ist April 1941, to entrust to the Government of each province, with its consent, the functions of the Central Government under the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926 (16 of 1926), in relation to trade unions whose objects are not confined to, and whose head office is situated in, that province." The second notification was mule and Article 258 of the Constitution of India on 26-2-1952 and reads as follows: "In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (1) of Article 258 of the Constitution and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the late Department of Labour No. L-3006. dated the 16th January, 1911, the President hereby entrust with effect from 1st March, 1952, to the. Government of each Part A State, except the Government of Orissa and the Government of each Part B State, except the Government of Jammu and Kashmir, with their consent, the functions of the Central Government under the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926 (16 of 1926), in relation to trade unions whose objects are not confined to, and whose head office is situated in, that State." 12. Relying on a Division Bench of this Court in Amir Khan v. State, AIR 1950 Allahabad 423, with regard to the scope of S. 121 (1) of the Government of India Act, 1935, Satish Chandra J. held that the conferment of authority by the President upon State Governments to discharge the functions of the Central Government under the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926, in relation to trade unions whose objects are not confined to and whose head offices are situated in a State, was valid. Dealing with the view expressed by two of their Lordships of the Supreme Court (Subba Rao and Wanchoo, JJ.) in Jayantilal Amritlal v. F. N. Rana. Dealing with the view expressed by two of their Lordships of the Supreme Court (Subba Rao and Wanchoo, JJ.) in Jayantilal Amritlal v. F. N. Rana. A.I.R. 1964 SC 648, holding that Article 255(1) of the Constitution was confined to entrustment of executive functions only and did not include delegation of legislative or rule-making power, my learned brother, Satish Chandra, J., held that this did not constitute a declaration of law by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution. He pointed out that the majority of their Lordships of the Supreme Court bad expressly rejected "as an obvious fallacy" the contention that all the powers supposed to fill under Article 258 (1 of the Constitution were the powers of the Union Government. The majority thereby seemed to accept the view that powers of the Union Government could be delegated. The view of the majority of the Supreme Court also was that certain powers of the President, to be exercised by the President personally, which were not the powers of the Union Government, could not be delegated under Article 25S (1) of the Constitution. On the wider question whether Article 238 (1) was broad enough in scope to cover delegation of rule-making powers of the Union Executive to State Governments, the majority had expressly refrained from pronouncing an opinion. I do not find it necessary to express any opinion on the correctness of the view adopted by Satish Chandra, J. on this matter which will come up for consideration in the special appeal pending in this Court directed against the view taken there. 13. There is, however, another aspect of this matter which does not appear to have been argued before Satish Chandra, J. It is that conferment of rule-making powers by Section 29 of the Trade Unions Act upon appropriate Governments for purposes mentioned in the Act necessarily means a demarcation of spheres of rule-making authorities of the Governments which have been specifically defined and vested separately with regard to rules of each particular class. Section 2 (a) says: "Appropriate Government means, in relation to trade unions whose objects are not confined to one province, the Central Government, and in relation to other trade unions, but subject to the provisions of Section 28 A, the Provincial Government." A reference to Section 28-A of the Act shows that notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the definition of "the appropriate Government" in Section 2, the Central Government is constituted the authority for purposes of Chapter 111-A with respect to workmen employed by the Central Government or by a Railway Administration. The result seems to me to be that the Central Legislature had expressly constituted the Central Government as the authority vested with the power to make regulations with regard to trade unions extending beyond the State as well as of workmen employed by a Railway Administration. Thu question which was perhaps not argued before Satish Chandra. J. was whether powers under Article 258 (1) were meant to be so used as to have the effect of modifying express legislative enactments vesting rule- making powers of a particular class in a specified Government. 14. Article 258(1) of the Constitution authorises the President to entrust functions to State Governments "in relation to any matter to which the executive power of the Union extends". The extent of the executive power of the Union is laid down in Article 73 of the Constitution. This Article makes it clear that the authority extends to "matters with respect to which the Parliament has power to make laws". It says nothing about matters with regard to which Parliament has already made a law. Article 238 (1) could, therefore, be so interpreted as to exclude matters on which spheres of rule-making authority are expressly demarcated by Parliament. Otherwise, Article 258 (1) of the Constitution may well be used to modify or repeal a law enacted by Parliament. I doubt whether by means of delegation under Article 258 (1) of the Constitution, express statutory provisions could be repealed or modified. If the provisions of the Act have the effect of a prohibition against exercise of rule-making powers of a certain class, under Section 29 of the Act. by a State Government. a delegation of rule-making power of that class to a State Government would modify a statute. 15. If the provisions of the Act have the effect of a prohibition against exercise of rule-making powers of a certain class, under Section 29 of the Act. by a State Government. a delegation of rule-making power of that class to a State Government would modify a statute. 15. I do not, however, think it necessary to express any final opinion upon the validity of the delegation of powers under Section 29 of the Trade Unions Act by the President to State Governments under the notification of 26-2-1952. I prefer to base my decision in this case on the alternative ground of decision adopted by Satish Chandra, J., in the concluding portion of his judgment when he observed: "Assuming, however, that the minority opinion of the Supreme Court is binding, the position will be that only the executive functions of the Central Government under the Trade Unions Act were entrusted to the State Government. The State Government could hence exercise the power of appointing a Registrar for a union whose objects extend to more than one State. The Registrar so appointed could validly exercise the various functions conferred on him by the Act. The, regulation making power confer- red by Section 29 of the Act can, however, not be exercised by the State Government in relation to such a trade union, and for such a union, the Registrar could not act wider, or enforce. the regulations framed by the State Government. There are no regulations made by the Central Government. The position would be that there are no regulations on matters left by the Act to be prescribed by regulations." 16. On the assumption stated above, Satish Chandra, J. held that it would not be possible to comply with the requirement of maintaining the register under Section 8 of the Act unless the Registry himself devised a suitable procedure to record a change of office-hearers for which the trade ,union has to make a relevant return under See. 28 (2) of the Act. In other words, the Registrar has all implied power to exercise his administrative functions in accordance with rules of reason. Acting upon this alternative view also, the writ petition directed against the earlier order of the Registrar dated 21-5-66 was dismissed by Satish Chandra. 28 (2) of the Act. In other words, the Registrar has all implied power to exercise his administrative functions in accordance with rules of reason. Acting upon this alternative view also, the writ petition directed against the earlier order of the Registrar dated 21-5-66 was dismissed by Satish Chandra. J. This seems to me to be completely in line with the view adopted by the Division Bench in L. H. Sugar Factories Mazdoor Union's case, Special Appeal No. 170 of I956 (All.) (supra). I concur with this line of reasoning and propose to follow it. Indeed, the view already taken by this Court on this matter is binding upon me sitting singly. 17. The result of the foregoing discussion is that the functions of the Registrar under Section 8 read with Section 28 of the Act to record changes in accordance with the position revealed by a return in a year is an administrative function only. In exercising the administrative functions, the Registrar can undertake a reasonable inguiry to discover whether alterations he is going to record are in conformity with the actual facts and rules. The implied power of the Registrar to ascertain actual [acts from the parties where there appears to be some conflict between W0 versions placed before ben by means of two forms filled tip and filed by two rival groups could not convert the inquiry held by the Registrar into a quasi-judicial proceeding in which each side has the right to lead evidence and cross-examine witnesses. All that the Registrar can do is to hold a summary inquiry for his own satisfaction. As the Registrar has not been given the power to adjudicate, in a quasi-judicial fashion. upon conflicting claims to represent the trade union, based upon divergent versions on questions of fact, the proper course ,for the Registrar in such cases is to refer the parties to a Civil Court for a decision and then to art in accordance with the decision arrived at by the Civil Court. Even if Regulation 17-A mentioned above were valid it would enable the Registrar to refuse tot record a change if he had reason to believe that the change has not been made, in the manner provided in the registered rules of the trade union. Even if Regulation 17-A mentioned above were valid it would enable the Registrar to refuse tot record a change if he had reason to believe that the change has not been made, in the manner provided in the registered rules of the trade union. Even under Regulation 17-A, the Registrar could only look at the rules and prima facie evidence and arrive at a conclusion to believe, record of not to believe and record that the change is not in accordance with the rules. He can refuse to record any change, even if he were to act under Regulation 17-A, and ask contesting parties to get an adjudication from a Civil Court first. 18. The notice sent by the Registrar does not prove that he has made wan his mind to embark on anything more than a summary inquiry to enable hint to perform his statutory functions reasonably and honestly. The facts placed before this Court are not enough to warrant any assumption that the Registrar will act in a particular manner clue to bias or pressure exercised upon him. If the Registrar does actually decide matters which are outside the sphere of his jurisdiction, the aggrieved party can approach this Court for quashing, his decision if necessary at all. There is no reason to believe at present that the Registrar intends to exceed his jurisdiction in a proceeding which, according to the view taken in the cases mentioned above, is administrative only. I also understand that the question whether the proceeding is administrative or quasi-judicial will he decided by a Division Bench in the special appeals mentioned above. Until the view taken by the earlier Division Bench in L. H. Sugar Factories Mazdoor Union's case, Special Appeal No. 170 of 1956 (All.) (supra), is overruled by a Full Bench, the view taken by the Division Bench and also by Satish Chandra. J., in Jagdish Bharti's case, Civil Misc. Writ No. 1227 of 1966 = 1969 Lab 1C 205 (All.), is binding upon this Court. 19. There is another difficulty in the way of the petitioner. It is that a writ of prohibition call only properly issue in a case in which a writ of certiorari could issue against the ultimate decision. J., in Jagdish Bharti's case, Civil Misc. Writ No. 1227 of 1966 = 1969 Lab 1C 205 (All.), is binding upon this Court. 19. There is another difficulty in the way of the petitioner. It is that a writ of prohibition call only properly issue in a case in which a writ of certiorari could issue against the ultimate decision. In other words, a writ of certiorari and prohibition are intended to be used only against quasi judicial authorities as was pointed out in King v. Electricity Commissioner, I KB 1924 p. 171. In the case of administrative decisions, as was held by the Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. D, N. Gangoly, A.I.R. 1958 SC 1018, the proper remedy is by way of a mandamus where in error has been made in carrying out directions of law by the authority against which a writ is sought. I am not satisfied from the material on record, particularly after going through the counter-affidavit filed by the Registrar, that the Registrar is going to exceed his jurisdiction or to commit any illegality in the exercise of his administrative functions. In any event the remedy of the party aggrieved by any decision of the Registrar, by filing a suit in the Civil Court, cannot be affected by any action taken by the Registrar which ,would be only tentative so far as the rights of the parties are concerned. I, therefore, consider this to be a fit case in which no discretionary relief by way of an issue of prerogative writ under Article 226 of the Constitution need be issued. The legal position has been sufficiently clarified in the course of this judgment. I, therefore, dismiss this writ petition. In the circumstances of the case. I make no order as to costs.