P. N. BHAGWATI, N. K. VAKIL, J. ( 1 ) ORDINARILY in the field of industrial law disputes which come to this Court are industrial disputes between an employer on the one hand and an employee or union of employees on the other but this case is rather unusual in that it brings to the Court a dispute between two unions of employees. The petitioner union is a trade union registered under the provisions of the Indian Trade Unions Act 1926 and prior to the order of the Registrar dated 26th December 1968 which is impugned in this petition it was registered as a representative union for the following industry namely generation and/or supply and/or transmission of electrical energy (hereinafter referred to as the electrical industry) in the local area of Ahmedabad City Municipal Borough Ahmedabad Cantonment and the village of Sabarmati (hereinafter referred to as the local area of Ahmedabad) under sec. 14 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act 1946 The first respondent Union is also a trade union registered under the provisions of the Indian Trade Unions Act 1926 It was registered in the name of the Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. Mazdoor Sabha on 20th December 1967 under certificate No. G-560 issued by the Registrar of Trade Unions. The Rules of the first respondent Union as originally registered with the Registrar of Trade Unions provided so far as is material for the purpose of the present petition:-1 The name of the union shall be the Ahmedabad Electricity Company Limited Mazdoor Sabha and it shall in the following Rules be referred to as the UNION. 2 (A) The objects of the Union shall be:- (a) to organise and unite the persons employed in the Ahmedabad Electricity Company Ltd. in the Ahmedabad City and to regulate their relations with their employers. . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Any person employed in the Ahmedabad Electricity Company Limited in Ahmedabad city and also who has attained the age of 15 years shall be entitled to become an ordinary member of the union on payment of monthly subscription of Re. 0-50 P. provided he agrees to abide by rules bye-laws that may be made by the union from time to time. 0-50 P. provided he agrees to abide by rules bye-laws that may be made by the union from time to time. 4 Persons who are not eligible to become ordinary members of the union may be admitted as honorary members of the union for the purposes of being elected or co-opted to the Managing Committee. . . . . . . . . RULE 30 provided for the manner in which the Rules shall be amended varied or rescinded and it said:- 30 The rules may be amended altered replaced rescinded or added to at any time by a majority of the members present at a General Meeting provided previous notice of at least seven days is given to the members of the proposed alterations. ON 10th May 1968 a general meeting of the members of the first respondent Union was convened inter alia for the purpose of amending the Rules and at this meeting which was held in Hansraj Pragji Hall a resolution was passed altering the Rules in several respects. Rule 1 was altered changing the name of the First respondent from the Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. Mazdoor Sabha to the Electricity Mazdoor Sabha and rules 2 (A) (a) and 3 were altered so as to provide that any person employed in the electricity industry in Ahmedabad district shall be entitled to become an ordinary member of the first respondent union. The first respondent union sent a copy of the resolution containing the alterations to the Registrar of Trade Unions on 11th May 1968 as required under sec. 28 (3) of the Indian Trade Unions Act 1926 and the Registrar of Trade Unions by his letter dated 23rd May 1968 intimated to the first respondent Union that the alterations made in the Rules at the meeting held on 10th May 1968 had been registered by the office of the Registrar on 20th May 1968. This letter according to the first respondent Union was received prior to 27th May 1968 and after receipt of this letter on 27th May 1968 the first respondent Union made an application to the Registrar under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act 1946 for being registered as a representative union in place of the petitioner union for the electrical industry in the local area of Ahmedabad. ( 2 ) THIS application was made under sec. ( 2 ) THIS application was made under sec. 16 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act 1946 The first respondent union alleged in the application that for the whole of the period of three calendar months namely February March and April 1968 the first respondent union had a membership of not less than 25 per cent of the total number of employees employed in the electrical industry in the local area of Ahmedabad and during the whole of the said period Its membership was larger than the membership of the petitioner union and claimed that in the circumstances it was entitled to registration as a representative union in place of the petitioner union. On receipt of the application the Registrar issued a show cause notice dated 4th June 1968 calling upon the petitioner union to show cause within thirty days of the receipt of such notice why the first respondent union should not be registered in its place. The petitioner union in reply to the show cause notice raised several contentions affecting the maintainability of the application and urged that these contentions being in the nature of preliminary objections should be treated as preliminary issues so that a long and protracted inquiry into the relative membership of the two unions may be avoided if it was found that the application was not maintainable. The Registrar however declined to treat these contentions as preliminary issues and decided to proceed with the hearing of the application as a whole and called upon the two unions to submit their relevant records. The first respondent union produced its records as directed by the Registrar but the petitioner union refused to do so and instead filed Special Civil Application No. 1217 of 1968 in this Court praying that a direction be issued to the Registrar not to proceed with the inquiry into the comparative membership of the two unions without first deciding the preliminary issues. The special civil application was however withdrawn by the petitioner union at the stage of admission as it was clear that this Court would not interfere at an interlocutory stage. The special civil application was however withdrawn by the petitioner union at the stage of admission as it was clear that this Court would not interfere at an interlocutory stage. The Registrar thereafter proceeded to hold an inquiry for ascertaining the relative membership of the two unions and since the petitioner union failed to produce the documents required to be produced under Rule 28a (3) as also to remain present before the Registrar on the dates fixed for the inquiry the Registrar proceeded with the inquiry exparte in the absence of the petitioner union as he was entitled to do under Rule 28a (5) (b) of the Bombay Industrial Relations (Gujarat) Rules 196 The Registrar interviewed the workers in a spot inquiry at three different places and after the conclusion of the spot inquiry the Registrar fixed a date for hearing the various preliminary contentions which were raised by the petitioner union against the maintainability of the application. The petitioner union by its letter dated 12th December 1968 stated that in support of these contentions the petitioner union wanted to lead evidence oral as well as documentary and for that purpose the petitioner union made several applications for summoning witnesses and forwarded them to the Registrar along with its letter dated 12th December 1968. The oral hearing of arguments thereafter took place on 16th December 1968 and at this hearing the petitioner union pressed its legal objections against the maintainability of the application. The Registrar in an elaborate order dated 26th December 1968 rejected the contentions of the petitioner union and 50 far as the applications for summoning witnesses were concerned observed that the legal position in regard to these contentions being clear it was not necessary to summon any witnesses as desired by the petitioner union. The Registrar summarised the result of the spot inquiry conducted by him for ascertaining the relative membership of the two unions and pointed out that out of 2411 employees interviewed by him 1795 were members of the first respondent union 197 were members of the petitioner union 412 were members of neither union and 7 were members of both unions. The Registrar summarised the result of the spot inquiry conducted by him for ascertaining the relative membership of the two unions and pointed out that out of 2411 employees interviewed by him 1795 were members of the first respondent union 197 were members of the petitioner union 412 were members of neither union and 7 were members of both unions. The Registrar therefore held that during the months of February March and April 1968 the first respondent union had a membership of over 25 per cent of the total number of employees employed in the electrical industry in the local area of Ahmedabad and its membership was larger than the membership of the petitioner union and in view of this conclusion he registered the first respondent union as a representative union in place of the petitioner union under sec. 16 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act 1946 ( 3 ) THE petitioner union being aggrieved by the order of the Registrar preferred an appeal to the Industrial Court under sec. 20 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act 1946 The same contentions which were advanced before the Registrar were repeated before the Industrial Court with an additional complaint namely that the Registrar was in error In rejecting the applications of the petitioner union for summoning witnesses in support of the legal objections raised by it. The Industrial Court was however not impressed by these contentions and by an order dated 20th February 1969 the Industrial Court confirmed the order of the Registrar and rejected the appeal of the petitioner union. Hence the present petition at the instance of the petitioner union challenging the validity of the orders of the Registrar and the Industrial Court. ( 4 ) BEFORE we set out the grounds on which the validity of the impugned orders was challenged it would be convenient at this stage to refer briefly to a few relevant provisions of the Indian Trade Unions Act 1926 and the Bombay Industrial Relations Act 1946 The Indian Trade Unions Act 1926 provides in a fasciculus of sections for registration of trade unions. Every application for registration of a trade union says sec. 5 shall be made to the Registrar and it shall be accompanied by a copy of the rules of the trade union. The rules of the trade union according to sec. Every application for registration of a trade union says sec. 5 shall be made to the Registrar and it shall be accompanied by a copy of the rules of the trade union. The rules of the trade union according to sec. 6 clause (g) must provide inter alia for the manner in which the rules shall be amended varied or rescinded. That is done by Rule 30 of the Rules of the first respondent union. Sec. 8 then provides that the Registrar on being satisfied that the trade union has complied with all the requirements of the Act in regard to registration shall register the trade union by entering the particulars relating to the trade union in a register and issue a certificate of registration in the prescribed form which under sec. 9 shall be conclusive evidence that the trade union has been duly registered under the Act. Secs. 23 and 25 lay down the procedure for effecting change in name of a registered union and so far as alterations in rules are concerned sec. 28 (3) provides that a copy of every alteration made in the rules of a registered trade union shall be sent to the Registrar within 15 days of the making of the alteration. What the Registrar is supposed to do on receiving a copy of the alteration is not set out in the Act but Regulation 12 of the Bombay Trade Unions Regulations 1927 made by the Government of Bombay in exercise of the power conferred under sec. 29 makes provision in that behalf. That Regulation says omitting portions immaterial:-12 Alteration of rules. (1) On receiving a copy of any alteration made in the rules of a Trade Union under sub-sec. (3) of sec. 28 the Registrar shall unless he has reason to believe that the alteration has not been made in the manner provided by the rules of the Trade Union or unless the alteration is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act register the alteration in a register to be maintained for this purpose and shall notify the fact that he has done so to the Secretary of the Trade Union. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxxthe combined effect of secs. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxxthe combined effect of secs. 6 (g) 22 and Regulation 12 as pointed out by the Supreme Court in the recent decision in Indian Oxygen Ltd. v. Their Workmen (1969) 1 Labour Law Journal 238 is that a registered union can alter its rules only in the manner provided in these provisions that is it has to send the amended rules to the Registrar within fifteen days from the amendment and until the Registrar is satisfied that the amendments are in accordance with the rules of the union and the provisions of the Act and on such satisfaction registers them in a register kept for that purpose and notifies that fact to the unions secretary the amendments do not become effective. ( 5 ) THE Bombay Industrial Relations Act 1946 as its preamble shows is an Act intended to regulate the relations of employers and employees and to make Provision for settlement of industrial disputes. It is an Act which has often come up for consideration before this Court and the basic principle underlying it is the principle of collective bargaining. the conception upon which this law is based is that redress of grievances must be collective and not individual. Recognition is given to to the fact that in most industries labour is organized and if labour is organized through its union that union must act and appear for labour in a representative capacity. Now in order to facilitate collective bargaining and to make it more effective it would be desirable to have only one union competent to speak on behalf of the employees and to bind them and that union from the point of view of healthy growth of trade union movement should not be confined only to a unit of an industry but should extend to the entire industry in a local area. The Act has. therefore evolved the concept of a representative union for an industry in a local area and given it complete and exclusive representative capacity to act and appear for all employees in the industry in the local area and to bind them regardless of the fact whether they are members or not. Sec. 3 (33) defines Representative Union to mean a union for the time being registered as a Representative union under the Act. Sec. 3 (33) defines Representative Union to mean a union for the time being registered as a Representative union under the Act. Sec. 13 (1) provides for registration of a representative union and says that any union and union here means a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Unions Act 1926 by reason of the definition of union in sec. 3 (38 ). . . . . WHICH has for the whole of the period of three calendar months immediately preceding the calender month in which it so applies under this section a membership of not less than fifteen per cent of the total number of employees employed in any industry in any local area may apply in the prescribed form to the Registrar for registration as a Representative Union for such industry in such local area. IF an application made by a union is once rejected the union cannot make a fresh application for a period of one year from the date of disposal of the previous application. Vide sec. 13 (4 ). When an application is made under sec. 13 (1) how is the Registrar to deal with it ? Sec. 14 provides the answer. It says:-14 On receipt of an application from a union for registration under sec. 13 and on payment of the fee prescribed the Registrar shall if after holding such inquiry as he deems fit comes to the conclusion that the conditions requisite for registration specified in the said section are satisfied and that the union is not otherwise disqualified for registration enter the name of the union in the appropriate register main tained under sec. 12 and issue a certificate in registration in such form as may be prescribed. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxxthere are six provisos to this section but out of them we are concerned only with the sixth proviso which reads:- provided. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sixthly that the Registrar shall not register any union if the rules of the union relating to its membership contain any provision debarring any employee in the industry concerned from being a member of such union on the ground that he is or is not an employee in any particular undertaking in the said industry. SEC. 15 defines the circumstances in which registration of a union may be cancelled by the Registrar. SEC. 15 defines the circumstances in which registration of a union may be cancelled by the Registrar. We are plot directly concerned with that section and it need not therefore detain us. Sec. 16 deals with the situation where there is already one union registered as a representative union and another union applies for registration in its place. Where such is the case what are the conditions which must be satisfied by the applicant union in order to capture the position of a representative union from the registered union ? Sec. 16 says :-16 If at any time any union (hereinafter in this section referred to as applicant union) makes an application to the Registrar for Being registered in place of the union already registered (hereinafter in this section referred to as registered union for an industry in a local area on the ground that it has a larger membership of employees employed in such industry the Registrar shall if a period of two years has elapsed since the date of registration of the registered union call upon the registered union by a notice in writing to 6how cause within thirty days of the receipt of such notice why the applicant union should not be registered in its place. An application made under this sub-section shall be accompanied by such fee as may be prescribed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2 ). . . . . . . . . . (3) If on the expiry of the period of notice under sub Sec. (1) after holding such inquiry as he deems fit the Registrar comes to the conclusion that the applicant union complies with the conditions necessary for registration specified in sec 13 and that its membership was during the whole of the period of three calendar months immediately preceding the calendar month in which it made the application under this section larger than the membership of the registered union he shall subject to the provisions of sec. 14 register the applicant union in place of the registered Union and issue certificate of registration in such form as may be prescribed. 14 register the applicant union in place of the registered Union and issue certificate of registration in such form as may be prescribed. (4) it was under this section that the first respondent union applied for registration as a representative union in place of the petitioner union and since in the view of the Registrar and the Industrial Court the first respondent union complied with the conditions necessary for registration under sec 13 and its membership during the months of February March ai April 1968 was larger than the membership of the petitioner union 471 the sixth proviso to sec 14 did not disentitle it to registration it was registered as a representative union in place of the petitioner union ( 6 ) HAVING referred to the relevant provisions of law we now go on to examine the grounds of challenge urged an behalf of the petitioner B. The grounds ranged over a large area but in the ultimate analysis they could be broadly classified under three heads namely:- (A) The sixth proviso to sec. 14 disentitled the first respondent union to registration since the unamended rules which were the rules in force during the months of February March and April 1968 contained a provision debarring employees of other concerns in the electrical industry from being members of the first respondent union on the ground that they were not employees of a particular undertaking namely the Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. Even if the date of the application be taken as the material date with reference to which it has to be determined whether the rules of the first respondent Union contained any debarring provision as contemplated under the sixth proviso to sec. 14 that would make no difference for the rules of the first respondent union which were in force at that date were the unamended rules containing such debarring provision the alterations in the rules purported to be made at the meeting of 10th May 1968 were not validly made since previous notice of the proposed alterations was not given to the members before the meeting was held and moreover there was no quorum which could lawfully transact the business of the meeting and in any event even if they were validly made they did not become effective until after the date of the application. (B) The application was not maintainable as the Managing Committee which resolved to make the application was not a validly elected committee. It was elected at the meeting of 29th January 1968 at which there was no quorum sufficient to transact the business of the meeting. (C) The change of name from the Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. Mazdoor Sabha to the Electricity Mazdoor Sabha not having been made with the consent of not less than two thirds of the total number of the members of the first respondent union was invalid by reason of sec. 23 of the Indian Trade Unions Act 1926 and in any event even if valid it was not effective at the date of the application since it was not registered in the register at any rate until 11th July 1968 and the application made in the name of the Electricity Mazdoor Sabha was therefore not maintainable. THOUGH the last ground mentioned above was relied upon by Mr. C. T Daru learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner union at the time when he formulated the arguments it must be stated in fairness to him that when it was pointed out to him that under sec. 13 of the Indian Trade Unions Act 1926 every registered trade union is a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal and sec. 26 provides that the change in the name of a registered trade union shall not affect any rights or render defective any legal proceeding by or against the trade union and such legal proceeding may be continued or commenced by its new name he with his usual candour conceded and in our opinion rightly that mere change in name does not affect the identity of the trade union and therefore so long as the identity of the trade union which made the application is certain and definite its mis-description by use of the wrong name would not affect the maintainability of the application. Since in the present case it was clear from the application that it was made by the trade union which was originally registered in the name of the Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Since in the present case it was clear from the application that it was made by the trade union which was originally registered in the name of the Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. Mazdoor Sabha and of which the name was subsequently sought to be changed to Electricity Mazdoor Sabha the application could not be said to be non-maintainable merely because it was made by the first respondent Union in the name of Electricity Mazdoor Sabha instead of Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. Mazdoor Sabha. This being the correct and indisputable legal position Mr. C. T. Daru very rightly did not press this ground of challenge. That leaves only the first two grounds of challenge and we shall now proceed to examine them in the order in which we have set them out above. ( 7 ) RE. Ground (A ). This Ground depends for its determination on the true interpretation to be placed on the sixth proviso to sec. 14. If there is one rule of construction more firmly established than any other it is that to arrive at a proper meaning of a statutory enactment the Court must have regard not only to the language of the enactment but also to the object and reason which inspired it. Let us therefore ask ourselves the question why was the sixth proviso to sec. 14 enacted:- what was the object and purpose which the Legislature had in view in enacting it ? That would furnish us a key to the interpretation of the proviso. Now as pointed out above the basic principle underlying the scheme of the Act is that there should be a representative union for an industry in a local area which should be entitled to represent completely to the exclusion of any other union-even to the exclusion of an individual employee in certain cases-employees in the industry in the local area irrespective of the fact whether they are members of such union or not. This principle has found recognition in several provisions of the Act. Sec. 3 (32) defines representative of employees to mean a representative of employees entitled to appear or act as such under sec. 30 and when we turn to sec. 30 we find that representative union stands first in the order of preference amongst the authorities entitled to appear or act as a representative of employees. Sec. 3 (32) defines representative of employees to mean a representative of employees entitled to appear or act as such under sec. 30 and when we turn to sec. 30 we find that representative union stands first in the order of preference amongst the authorities entitled to appear or act as a representative of employees. Sec. 27a provides that save in the limited cases specified in secs. 32 and 33 no employee shall be allowed to appear or act in any proceeding under the Act except through the representative of employees. Sec. 33 confers power on the authority before whom a proceeding is pending under the Act to permit an individual whether an employee or not to appear in the proceeding but there is a proviso which qualifies this provision and says that no such individual shall be permitted to appear in any proceeding in which a representative union has appeared as the representative of employees. Where therefore a representative union appears in any proceeding under the Act as the representative of employees no employee not even one whose grievance forms the subject matter of the proceeding can be permitted to appear in the proceeding:- his point of view must be presented only through the representative union. So also under sec. 42 (2) where an employee desires a change in respect of an industrial matter not specified in Schedule I or III notice of change is required to be given by the representative of employees with the result that if there is a representative union that union alone can give notice of change to the exclusion of an individual employee. Vide Usman Habib v. The State of Bombay 56 Bombay Law Reporter 1124 The representative union is also given power to bind all employees in the industry in the local area by entering into a registered agreement settlement submission or award. Sec. 114 sub-sec. (1) (b) provides that in case of a registered union-which would include a union registered as a representative union-which is a party to a registered agreement settlement submission or award all employees in the industry in the local area whose representative that union is shall be bound by such agreement settlement submission or award. Sec. 114 sub-sec. (1) (b) provides that in case of a registered union-which would include a union registered as a representative union-which is a party to a registered agreement settlement submission or award all employees in the industry in the local area whose representative that union is shall be bound by such agreement settlement submission or award. The representative union is thus given valuable rights under the Act:- it is given the power to represent and bind all employees in the industry in the local area for which it is registered as a representative union. Now this being position it would be highly inequitable and unjust that an employee should be represented and by the acts of the representative union and yet he should have no voice in shaping the policies of that union. If an employee is to be bound by the acts of the representative union it is but fair and just that he should be able to become a member of the union and to participate in its deliberations. The Legislature therefore insisted that if a union is to be registered as a representative union its doors must be open to all the employees in the industry in the local area whom it would represent on being registered as a representative union. This result vas secured by enacting the sixth proviso to sec. 14 which provided that the Registrar shall not register any union if the rules of the union contain any provision debarring any employee in the industry from being a member of such union on the ground that he is or is not an employee in any particular undertaking in the said industry. The object of enacting the sixth proviso to sec. 14 was that no employee represented by the representative union and bound by its acts should be denied the opportunity of becoming a member of the union merely because he is or is not an employee in any particular undertaking in the industry. If this object of enactment of the sixth proviso to sec. 14 is kept in mind the construction of the proviso does not present any difficulty. ( 8 ) THE first question which arises for consideration on the sixth proviso to sec. If this object of enactment of the sixth proviso to sec. 14 is kept in mind the construction of the proviso does not present any difficulty. ( 8 ) THE first question which arises for consideration on the sixth proviso to sec. 14 is as to whether the rules of the first respondent union as they stood prior to their amendment contained any provision debarring any employee in the electrical industry from being a member of the first respondent union on the ground that he is or is not an employee in any particular undertaking in the electrical industry. The argument of the first respondent union was and that argument found favour with the Industrial Court-that there was no such debarring provision in the unamended rules of the first respondent union and in any event even if there was any such provision it was of no practical consequence since apart from the Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. there was no other concern in electrical industry which was recognized as an undertaking under sec. 11 and no employee of any undertaking in the electrical industry was therefore in fact excluded from membership of the first respondent union. Now if this argument were correct it would afford a complete answer to the contention based on the sixth proviso to sec. 14 and it would be wholly unnecessary to consider the other questions argued before us. But for reasons which we shall presently discuss we are of the view that the argument is not well-founded and cannot be sustained. ( 9 ) TURNING to the first limb of the argument the first respondent union contended that the words used by the Legislature in the sixth proviso to sec. 14 clearly suggested that the rules of the union must contain an express provision debarring any employee in the industry from becoming a member of the union. The words emphasized were contain any provision and from these words it was sought to be argued on behalf of the first respondent union that there must be an express provision and since in the present case there was no such express provision the unamended rules did not fall within the mischief of the sixth proviso to sec. 14. The words emphasized were contain any provision and from these words it was sought to be argued on behalf of the first respondent union that there must be an express provision and since in the present case there was no such express provision the unamended rules did not fall within the mischief of the sixth proviso to sec. 14. Now it is no doubt true that there is no provision in the unamended rules saying in so many terms that an employee in any other concern in the electrical industry in the local area of Ahmedabad shall be debarred from being a member of the first respondent union on the ground that he is or is not an employee in any particular undertaking in he industry. But in order to attract the applicability of the sixth proviso to sec. 14 it is not necessary that there should be any express provision. The words contain any provision would be satisfied whether the provision is an express provision or an implied provision. Even if a provision is found in the rules by necessary implication it would be quite appropriate and correct to say that the rules contain such provision. If the Legislature intended that the provision should be an express provision and an implied provision would not suffice we have no doubt that the Legislature would have used appropriate language to express itself clearly by adding some such word as express or explicit before the word provision. Moreover the object behind the enactment of the sixth proviso to sec. 14 also supports the thesis that the provision may be an implied provision. If an implied provision were not within the scope of the sixth proviso to sec. 14 it would be possible for a union to exclude employees in other concerns the industry by framing its rules skillfully and thus defeat the object of the enactment of the sixth proviso to sec. 14. The underlying idea behind the sixth proviso to sec. 14 being that the membership of the representative union must be open to all employees in the industry in the local area any provision express or implied in the rules which has the effect of debarring any employee in the industry in the local area from being a member of the union must be held to come within the mischief of the sixth proviso to sec. 14. 14. Now in the present case it is clear on a plain reading of rules 2 (g) 3 and 4 of the unamended rules of the first respondent union that only those persons who were employees of the Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. were entitled to become members of the first respondent union and by necessary implication no person who was not an employee of the Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. could be a member of the first respondent union. There was thus clearly an implied provision debarring employees in other concerns in the electrical industry from being members of the first respondent union on the ground that they were not employees in the Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. which was admittedly an underrating recognised under sec. 11. ( 10 ) SO far as the second limb of the argument was concerned it rested upon the assumption that apart from the Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. ; there was na other undertaking in the electrical industry in the local area of Ahmedabad and the contention of the first respondent Union based on this assumption was that no employee of any undertaking in the electrical industry was in fact debarred from being a member of the first respondent union and therefore it was academic to consider whether the rules of the first respondent union contained any debarring provision as contemplated under the sixth proviso to sec. 14. This contention plausible though it may seem at first blush is clearly on a closer analysis devoid of merit. What the sixth proviso to sec. 14 requires is that the rules of the union must not contain any provision debarring any employee in the industry from being a member of the union on the ground that he is or b not an employee in any particular undertaking in the industry If the rules contain any such provision expressly or by necessary implications the inhibition contained in the sixth proviso to sec. 14 would be attracted and it would be no answer to say that in fact there are no other employees in the industry in the local area who would be excluded from membership by such provision. 14 would be attracted and it would be no answer to say that in fact there are no other employees in the industry in the local area who would be excluded from membership by such provision. It may be that at the time when the union is registered as a representative union by the Registrar there is no other concern in the industry in the local area governed by the Act and therefore no employee in the industry in the local area is in fact excluded from membership of the first respondent union but after the registration other concerns may come into being which are governed by the Act and the employees of those concerns would be excluded from membership of the first respondent union and yet they would be bound by the acts of the first respondent union. The mischief sought to be avoided by the sixth proviso to sec. 14 would not be prevented and the object of the enactment of the sixth proviso would be frustrated. It would therefore be dangerous to adopt what may be called a practical approach in the construction and application of the sixth proviso to sec. 14. We must look at the rules as they stood prior to the amendment and consider whether they contained any provision debarring any employee in the electrical industry from being a member of the first respondent union and if they did they must come within the mischief of the sixth proviso to sec. 14 and if at a given point of time there were in fact no other employees in the electrical industry who could be debarred from being members of the first respondent union under the unamended rules. ( 11 ) IT is therefore clear that if the rules as they stood prior to their amendment governed the decision of this question the first respondent union cannot escape the inhibition of the sixth proviso to sec. 14. The first respondent union however contended that the rules were altered at the meeting held on 10th May 1968 and as a result of the alterations the membership of the first respondent union was thrown open to all employees in the electrical industry in Ahmedabad district and the vice affecting the rules contemplated under the sixth proviso to sec. 14 was removed. 14 was removed. The altered rules said the first respondent union were effective at the time when the Registrar decided the question of registration of the first respondent union and in any event at the date when the application was made and therefore the sixth proviso to sec. 14 did not stand in the way of the registration of the first respondent union. The petitioner union sought to repel this contention by saying that the material time with reference to which the question whether the rules contained any debarring provision was required to be determined was the period of three calendar months namely February March and April 1968 and since during these three months the alterations in the rules had not come into force and the unamended rules prevailed the first respondent union was within the exhibition of the sixth proviso of sec. 14. The petitioner union also urged that in any event even if the date of the application be taken as the material date that would not help the first respondent union since the alterations in the rules were not validly made and even if validly made they had not become effective at the date of the application and therefore the rules which prevailed at the date of the application were the unamended rules. These rival contentions raised an interesting question of construction of the sixth proviso to sec. 14. ( 12 ) TURNING once again to the scheme of the provisions of the Act in relation to a representative union obviously in order that a representative union should be really representative in character it was necessary for the Legislature to lay down a minimum strength of membership which should be considered sufficient to give representative character to the representative union. The Legislature therefore fixed the minimum strength of membership at twenty-five per cent of the total number of employees employed in the industry in the local area and provided that a union which applies for registration as a representative union must have this minimum strength of membership. The Legislature therefore fixed the minimum strength of membership at twenty-five per cent of the total number of employees employed in the industry in the local area and provided that a union which applies for registration as a representative union must have this minimum strength of membership. Now it may be that at the date of the application the applicants union has a membership of not less than twenty-five percent of the total number of employees in the industry in the local area but that strength of membership may be the result of some fortuitous or advantageous circumstance and may not be a continuous sustained strength over a period of time. To recognise the applicant union as a representative union in such a case would not be right for the strength of membership at the date of the application may not correctly reflect whether the representative union is really representative in character. The Legislature therefore provided a period of three calendar months immediately preceding the calendar month in which the application is made during which the applicant union must have the minimum strength of membership in order to entitle it to make an application for registration as a representative union. This period of three calendar months was regarded as a reasonably sufficient period for the purpose of determining whether the applicant union was really representative in character. If the applicant union had the minimum strength of membership throughout this continuous period of three calendar months indicating that its strength of membership was sustained and not erratic fortuitous it could reasonably be assumed that it was representative in character and could apply for registration as a representative union. Now the argument of the petitioner union was that if this period of three calendar months was provided as the period with reference to which the representative character of the applicant union must be judged it was reasonable to suppose that the question whether the rules contained any debarring provision within the meaning of the sixth proviso to sec. 14 was also intended to be-determined with reference to the same period. 14 was also intended to be-determined with reference to the same period. The condition that the rules of the applicant union must not contain any debarring provision was as much a requirement of representative character as the condition that the applicant union should have a minimum strength of membership and if the latter was required to be judged-with reference to the period of three calendar months the former must also likewise be judged with reference to the same period. This argument was seriously pressed on behalf of the petitioner union but it does not appeal to us. It seeks to project in the sixth proviso to sec. 14 the period of three calendar months provided in sec. 13 when there are no words to that effect in the sixth proviso to sec. 14. The period of three calendar months is provided in sec. 13 for the purpose of determining whether the applicant union really enjoys the sustained strength of membership considered sufficient to give it representative character and the condition that the applicant union should have the minimum strength of membership throughout this period of three calendar months is made by sec. 13 a condition of making an application for registration as a representative union. It is only if this condition is satisfied that a union can make an application for registration s a representative union. then comes the sixth proviso to sec. 14 which says that the Registrar shall not register the applicant union if the rules of the applicant union contain any debarring provision. There is nothing in the language of the sixth proviso to sec. 14 to indicate that the inhibition contained in it is referable to the period of three calendar months specified in sec. 13. There is not even a reference in the sixth proviso to sec. 14 to the period of three calendar months and it is not possible to project the period of three calender months in the sixth proviso to sec. 14. Moreover the condition set out in the sixth proviso to sec. 14 namely that the rules of the applicant union should not contain any debarring provision is not made a condition of making the application. It is not introduced as a proviso to sec. 13. The sixth proviso to sec. 14. Moreover the condition set out in the sixth proviso to sec. 14 namely that the rules of the applicant union should not contain any debarring provision is not made a condition of making the application. It is not introduced as a proviso to sec. 13. The sixth proviso to sec. 14 is a proviso which qualifies the power of the Registrar to register the applicant union:- it is an inhibition which comes into play at the time of registration. It is at the time of registration that the Registrar has to ask himself the question:- do the rules of the applicant union contain any debarring provision? To answer this question he will have to look at the rules as they exist at that time. He will not be concerned with the question as to what the rules were during the period of three calendar months referred to in sec. 13 or even at the date of the application though ordinarily the period of time between the date of the application and the time when he decides the question of registration would not be long and there would be very few chances of the rules being altered during that period. If the intention of the Legislature were that the question whether the rules of the applicant union contain a debarring provision should be considered with reference to the date of the application the Legislature would have expressed itself clearly by saying something to the following effect:- The Registrar shall not register any union if at the date of the application the rules of the union. Moreover the object of enactment of the sixth proviso to sec. 14 being that the union should not be allowed to represent and bind employees in the industry in the local area as a representative union unless its member ship is open to all such employees it is only when the applicant union acquires representative character that it becomes necessary that all employees in the industry in the local area should be entitled to be members of such union. It is therefore at the stage of registration that the question becomes relevant whether the rules of the applicant union contain any debarring provision. If the rules contain any debarring provision then obviously representative character cannot be given to the applicant union. It is therefore at the stage of registration that the question becomes relevant whether the rules of the applicant union contain any debarring provision. If the rules contain any debarring provision then obviously representative character cannot be given to the applicant union. We are therefore of the view that the question whether the rules of the applicant union contain any debarring provision as contemplated in the sixth proviso to sec. 14 has to be determined not with reference to the period of three calendar months referred to in sec. 13 nor with reference to the date of the application but with reference to the time at which the question of registration is decided by the Registrar. ( 13 ) NOW it was common ground between the parties that the altered rules removed the vice contemplated under the sixth proviso to sec. 14 and if therefore the altered rules became effective prior to the date of the order of the Registrar the sixth proviso to sec. 14 would be out of the way of the first respondent union. The alterations in the rules were made at the meeting of 10th May 1968 and a copy of the resolution containing the alterations was forwarded by the first respondent union to the Registrar of Trade Unions on 11th May 1968. The Registrar of the Trade Unions by a letter dated 23rd May 1968 intimated to the first respondent union inter alia that the alterations in the rules were registered. This letter according to the first respondent union was received before the application was made by the first respondent union. This position was disputed by the petitioner union and an application was made by the petitioner union to the Registrar for summoning an officer from the office of the Registrar of Trade Union for producing various documents from that office. This application was rejected by the Registrar and a complaint was made before us that the Registrar was wrong in refusing the application. We therefore required the Registrar of Trade Unions to produce the relevant records before us as desired by the petitioner union. This application was rejected by the Registrar and a complaint was made before us that the Registrar was wrong in refusing the application. We therefore required the Registrar of Trade Unions to produce the relevant records before us as desired by the petitioner union. On looking at the records produced by the Registrar of Trade Unions it is clear that the letter dated 23rd May 1968 acknowledging the fact of registration of the alterations in the rules was despatched from the office of the Registrar of Trade Unions on 23rd May 1968 and in normal course it must have been received by the first respondent union within one or two days. The fact that it was received by the first respondent union before the date of the application is also borne out from a letter dated 27 May 1968 addressed by the first respondent union to the Registrar of Trade Unions acknowledging receipt of the letter dated 23rd May 1968. We are therefore satisfied that the acknowledgment of the registration of the alterations in the rules was notified to the secretary of the first respondent union prior to the date of the application. The alterations in the rules were therefore effective at the date of the application and a fortiori they were in force at the time when the Registrar made the order granting registration. ( 14 ) THAT takes us to the last question under this head of challenge namely whether the alterations in the rules were validly made at the meeting of 10th May 1968. The argument of the petitioner union was that the alterations in the rules were invalid for two reasons first because a seven days previous notice of the proposed alterations was not given to the members of the first respondent union before holding the meeting and secondly there was no sufficient quorum at the meeting. This argument was also urged before the Registrar but it was negatived on the ground that once the alterations in the rules were registered by the Registrar of Trade Unions it was not open to the Registrar under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act 1946 to go into the question whether the alterations were validly made in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules. The same argument was repeated before the Industrial Court in appeal but the Industrial Court taking the view that even if the rules stood unamended they did not offend the sixth proviso to sec. 14 did not consider it necessary to examine the question whether the alterations in the rules were invalid for either of the two reasons. Since however we have taken a different view as to the construction of the sixth proviso to sec. 14 it becomes necessary to deal with this argument and the principal question which requires to be considered is whether it is open to a third party like the petitioner union to challenge the validity of the alterations in the rules of the first respondent union before the Registrar under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act 1946 when they have been registered by the Registrar of Trade Unions and acknowledgment of registration has been communicated to the secretary of the first respondent union. ( 15 ) NOW it may be noted that every trade union must have its rules and no trade union can be registered unless a copy of the rules is forwarded to the Registrar of Trade Unions along with the application for registration and the Registrar of Trade Unions is satisfied that the rules are in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Where the Registrar of Trade Unions is so satisfied and he registers the trade union the rules as approved and accepted by him constitute the basis on which the trade union is registered and no one can be permitted to challenge that the rules are not in order. Similarly when the rules are altered a copy of the alterations is required to be sent to the Registrar of Trade Unions within fifteen days of the making of the alterations. Vide sec. 28 (3) of the Trade Unions Act 1926 On receipt of the copy of the alterations the Registrar says Regulation 12 of the Bombay Trade Union Regulations 1927 which by reason of sec. 30 has effect as if enacted in the Act shall unless he has reason to believe that the alteration has not been made in the manner provided by the rules of the trade union or unless the alteration is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act register the alteration. . . . . 30 has effect as if enacted in the Act shall unless he has reason to believe that the alteration has not been made in the manner provided by the rules of the trade union or unless the alteration is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act register the alteration. . . . . and shall notify the fact that he has done so to the secretary of the trade union. The Registrar has therefore to apply his mind to the question whether the alterations are in accordance with the provisions of the Act and have been made in the manner provided in the rules and if he is satisfied in that behalf then only he would register the alterations and notify the fact of registration to the secretary of the trade union. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in Indian Oxygen v. Their Workmen (supra) it is only when The Registrar is satisfied that the amendments are in accordance with rules of the union and also in accordance with the provisions of the Act and on such satisfaction registers them in a register kept for that purpose and notifies that fact to the union secretary that the amendments become effective. No alterations in the rules are effective until they are registered by the Registrar of Trade Unions and acknowledgment of registration is communicated to the secretary to the trade union. It is therefore evident that the law-makers have attached great importance to registration of alterations so much so that the efficacy of the alterations is made dependent on registration and the reason for this is not far to seek. The original rules being registered it is necessary that the alterations should also be registered for otherwise an outsider dealing with the trade union would not know what are the rules of the trade union at a given point of time and he would be misled. Moreover once the alterations are registered by the Registrar of Trade Unions after being satisfied that they are in accordance with the rules of the union and also in accordance with the provisions of the Act everyone concerned with the trade union should be able to proceed on the basis that the alterations were regularly made in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules of the trade union. No inquiry should thereafter be permissible into the question whether in making the alterations the forms of procedure prescribed by the Act or the rules of the trade union was complied with or not. Otherwise it would be open to refractory member at any distance of time to raise a question as to the validity of the alterations on the ground of non-compliance with some rule relating to procedure such as want of proper notice of the meeting or lack of quorum or some such procedural defect and that would lead to great inconvenience and mischief. The law-makers obviously intended that no such question should be allowed to be raised once the alterations had passed the scrutiny of the Registrar of Trade Unions and had been registered by him:- then everyone concerned with the trade union may safely act on the alterations and treat them as valid and effective. If that were not so it is difficult to imagine any intelligible reason why the law-makers should have insisted that the alterations must be scrutinized by the Registrar of Trade Unions and if after scrutiny the Registrar of Trade Unions is satisfied that the alterations are made in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules of the trade union and registers them then only they should become effective. This provision we can safely presume must have been enacted for a valid reason and that reason can only be to prevent allegations of failure to comply with the forms of procedure in making the alterations and to introduce a measure of certainty and definitiveness so that anyone concerned with the trade union whether he be a trade union official or an outsider dealing with the trade union can safely act on the rules as he finds them in the register without any possibility of finding subsequently to his mortification that some procedural rule was not complied with and the alterations made in the rules were therefore invalid. ( 16 ) IT is no doubt true that there is no provision made in the Act or in the Regulations for an inquiry to be held by the Registrar of Trade Unions for the purpose of considering whether or not the alterations made in the Rules forwarded to him should be registered nor is any right given to a member of the trade union to raise the question of validity of the alterations before the Registrar of Trade Unions. The Registrar of Trade Unions has to arrive at his satisfaction whether the alterations are made in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules on such material as is placed before him either voluntarily by the officebearers of the trade union or pursuant to inquiry made by him in that behalf and it is possible that this material may be inadequate or incomplete so that even alterations which are not made in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules may come to be registered by him. But even where such is the case the construction adopted by us does not involve any real hardship or inconvenience. If any procedural requirements prescribed by the Act or the Rules have not been followed in making the alterations any member of the trade union can always bring such irregulartities to the notice of the Registrar of Trade Unions before he registers the alterations and it would be a fair presumption to make that the Registrar of Trade Unions would in that event be more critical and searching in his inquiry-if necessary he might even take the assistance of such member for the purpose of satisfying himself whether any such irregularities affect the making of the alterations. Even if the registration is made an individual member of the trade union is not without remedy:- he can always move for repeal or modification of the alterations at a meeting of the members of the trade union and if a majority of the members agree with him and disapprove of the alterations the alterations can be repealed or modified and the wrong redressed. If however the majority is in favour of the alterations he can have no complaint for alterations of the rules is a matter within the power of a simple majority. If however the majority is in favour of the alterations he can have no complaint for alterations of the rules is a matter within the power of a simple majority. So far as a third party is concerned it is difficult to see how he is entitled to complain about any irregularity in the internal management of the trade union. If there is any irregularity in the making of the alterations in the rules it is for the trade union as a corporate body to complain about it and no individual member of the trade union-much less a third party-can be heard to say that the alterations are invalid because of such irregularity. Since the power to make the alterations belongs to the majority the majority can always cure such irregularity and therefore if the majority accepts the alterations as valid it is not open to a third party to contend that by reason of such irregularity the alterations are invalid. That is a matter pertaining to the internal management of the trade union over which the majority has full control. This is a well established field of company law commonly known as the rule in Foss v. Harbottle (1843) 8 Hare 461 67 F. R. 189 and Mozlay v. Alston (1947) 1 Ph. 790:- 41 E. R. 833 and it extends equally to other corporations and there are at least two decisions of the English Courts namely Cotter v. National Union of Seamen (1929) 2 Ch. 58 and Edwards and Another v. Haliwai and Another (1950) 2 All. E. R. 1064 where it has been held applicable also in the case of trade unions which are corporate bodies under the statutes creating them. It would therefore appear that no real difficulty or hardship is caused by taking the view that once the alterations are registered by the Registrar of Trade Unions their validity cannot be challenged on the ground of non-compliance with the forms of procedure prescribed by the Act and the Rules of the trade union. This bar of course does not apply where the ground of challenge is that the alterations are illegal or ultra vires. Registration precludes an inquiry into the regularity of the steps taken to make the alterations and not an inquiry into the question whether the alterations are illegal or ultra vires. This bar of course does not apply where the ground of challenge is that the alterations are illegal or ultra vires. Registration precludes an inquiry into the regularity of the steps taken to make the alterations and not an inquiry into the question whether the alterations are illegal or ultra vires. If the alterations are illegal or ultra vires that question can certainly be raised notwithstanding registration for otherwise illegality would be perpetuated and what is incapable of being done what is non est in the eye of the law would have efficacy and force. But that does not help the petitioner union for the contention of the petitioner union is not that the alterations are illegal or ultra vires but that they are invalid by reason of the procedural irregularities namely want of proper notice of the meeting of the members and lack of quorum at the time and this contention is no longer open once the alterations are registered by the Registrar of Trade Unions. Moreover apart from the bar arising from registration it is evident from the application of the rule of Foss v. Harbottle (supra) and Mozlay v. Alston (supra) that the petitioner union being a third party cannot be heard to complain about any irregularities in the internal management of the trade union when the majority which is capable of doing regularly that which has been done irregularly accepts what has been done as valid. If the majority is not aggrieved by any irregularities in the making of the alterations in the rules it is difficult to see how the petitioner union which is a third party can rely on any such irregularities for the purpose of invalidating the alterations. ( 17 ) THIS view as to the effect of registration of alterations in the rules receives considerable support from certain decisions of the English Courts. The earliest decision and also the most oft-quoted is the one in Dewhurat v. Clarkson 3 E. and B. 194:- 118 E R 1114. In that case the Court was concerned with a certificate which a barrister was required to give under the Friendly Societies Act 1834 sec. 4 that the rules of a society were in conformity to law and to the provisions of the said recited Act (10 Geo. IV c. 56) and this Act the section also providing that: -. . . 4 that the rules of a society were in conformity to law and to the provisions of the said recited Act (10 Geo. IV c. 56) and this Act the section also providing that: -. . . all rules alterations and amendments thereof from the time when the same shall be certified by the said barrister or advocate shall be binding on the several members and officers of the said society and all other persons having interest therein. The majority of the Court thought that the barristers certificate barred objections as to the regularity of the manner in which the rules had been made though the barrister was not required to inquire into regularity of the making of the rules so that his certificate could not be considered a judicial determination of the matter. Lord Campbell delivering the majority judgment said:-THE plaintiffs counsel I think entirely failed in the attempt to show that the barrister is to inquire into the regularity of the making of the rules so that his certificate is to be considered a judicial determination of this matter. No such function is vested in him:- and those who may think that the rules were irregularly made are not furnished with any means of raising the question. In very rare instances this may produce some inconvenience but faith may generally be given to the signature and affidavit required as preliminaries; and probably much more inconvenience would arise if after the rules have been certified and confirmed and acted upon it were competent to any refractory member at any distance of time to object that the proper notices were not given of the meeting at which they were agreed to or that there were not a sufficient number of members present at this meeting or that upon a division the votes on each side were not accurately counted. If notwithstanding the precautions taken any rule has been certified by the barrister which was not regularly made a remedy would be open to a member who disapproves of it by moving its repeal or modification; and if there be a majority of the Society who agree with him the wrong would be redressed. THE principle of this case was applied in Rossenberg v. Northumberland Building Society (1889) 22 Q. B. D. 373 where the question was as to the effect of a certificate issued by the Registrar under sec. THE principle of this case was applied in Rossenberg v. Northumberland Building Society (1889) 22 Q. B. D. 373 where the question was as to the effect of a certificate issued by the Registrar under sec. 17 of the Building Societies Act 1874 which provided that the Registrar. . . . . if he finds that the rules contain all the provisions set forth in sec. 16 of this Act and that they are in conformity with this Act shall register the rules. The Court held that the registration certificate was conclusive as to the validity of the proceedings taken by the society for the passing of the new rules. ( 18 ) THESE cases were reviewed by Danckwerts J. in a re cent decision reported in Birch v. National Union of Railwaymen, 1950 2 Aller 353 and the learned Judge stated the principle deducible from these cases in the following words:-SO far as any principle can be ascertained from these cases they indicate that such approval or certificate normally prevents inquiry into the regularity of the steps taken to pass the rules but does not prevent judicial inquiry into the validity of the rules if it is contended that they are ultra viresthe learned Judge then proceeded to consider whether this principle was applicable in the construction of sec. 3 (1) (b) of the Trade Unions Act 1913 with which he was concerned in that case. That section provided for approval of the rules by the Registrar and the question was whether the approval of the Registrar precluded an inquiry into the question whether the conditions required by that sub-section were satisfied. The learned Judge observed:-IT was contended on behalf of the defendants that such approval must be meant to have some effect and that the intention is that trade union officials might safely act on the rules and treat them as valid once they have been approved by the Registrar. There is much force in this contention and it is not unreasonable that trade Union officials should suppose that when rules have passed the scrutiny of the Registrar such rules can be treated as effective. There is much force in this contention and it is not unreasonable that trade Union officials should suppose that when rules have passed the scrutiny of the Registrar such rules can be treated as effective. On the other hand the cases to which I have referred show that certificates of approval under a number of statutes have been treated as effective only to prevent subsequent allegations of failure to comply with the forms of procedure and not to prevent attack on the material validity of the rules. In the present case the Legislature has made it plain in other sections that certificates under this Act are to be conclusive but has omitted any such provision in the present context. It seems to me that the approval mentioned in sec. 3 (1) cannot be treated as conclusive so as to preclude consideration by the Court whether the conditions required by the sub-section have been satisfiedthe learned Judge held that the inquiry into the questions whether the conditions of sec. 3 (1) (b) were satisfied or not was not precluded by the approval of the Registrar since that was a question affecting the material validity of the rules and it was not merely a question of failure to comply with certain forms of procedure. The case before us is however of a different character because what is alleged here is not a ground affecting the material validity of the rules but mere irregularities arising from noncompliance with the rules of procedure and it must therefore be held that the petitioner union was not entitled to contend that the alterations in the rules were invalid for either of the two reasons put forward by it. ( 19 ) RE:- Ground (B ). This ground raises a question as to whether the Managing Committee which authorised the making of the application was a validly constituted committee. It is a question relating to the internal administration of the first respondent union and for reasons which we have already discussed while dealing with the preceding ground it is clear that toe petitioner union which is a third party is not entitled to contend that the managing Committee was not properly elected as there was no sufficient quorum at the meeting of 20th January 1968 which elected the Managing Committee. That is not a matter a out which even an individual member of the first respondent union can complain and if that be so it is difficult to see how the petitioner union which is a third party can do so. ( 20 ) THESE were the only grounds urged on behalf of the petitioner. union and since there is no substance in them the petition fails and the rule is discharged. There will be no order as to costs of the petition. .