Judgment S. B. Sinha, S. Hoda, JJ. 1. In this application the petitioner for quashing of an order as contained in Letter dated 6-6-1991 Annexure-2 to the writ application) by reason whereof the petitioners application for review of a decision of the then Registrar, Trade Union relating to amalgamation of the Jute Mill Mazdoor Sangh and Rameshwar Jute Mills Labour Union has been rejected. 2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. The Jute Mills Mazdoor Sangh (hereinafter referred to as "the Sangh" was registered Trade Union bearing Registration No.1900/75 on dated 8th October, 1975. The Rameshwar Jute Mills Labour Uniop (hereinafter referred to as the Union) was also a Registered Trade Union having registration No.95/46. 3. According to the petitioner in Annual General Meeting of the sangh held on 28th June, 1981, Laliteshwar Jha, M L C. , was elected president in place of Sri Mundeshwar Singh and Sri Kamal Rai was re-elected as General Secretary. The same was duly notified to the Registrar of Trade Union by a letter dated 30th June, 1981 (Annexure-3 ). 4. The petitioner has contended that Kamal Rai was at the relevant time an office bearer of the Sangh. The petitioner has condoned (sic) that the management intended to damage the activities of the Sangh and with this idea a proposal to amalgamate of the same with Union was floated. 5. Allegedly by a letter dated 14th August, 1981 one Sri Ram Prasad rai wrote a letter to the Registrar Trade Union, Bihar, Patna to the effect that the Executive Committee on 14th August, 1981 has unanimously resolved that the Sangh should be amalgamated with the Union. The said letter is contained in Annexure-8 to the writ application. 6. The petitioner allegedly issued a letter dated 10th October.1981 (Annexure-8) to the Registrar whereby he was intimated that no amalgamation with the Sangh with the Union has been taken. The petitioner contends that some papers were manufactured to show that the meeting of the Executive Committee was held on 14th September, 1981, although the same was not convened at his instance. 7. However, by an order dated 25th January, 1981, the Registrar, trade Union allowed the scheme of amalgamation of the aforementioned two trade Unions (Annexure-1 ). 8. The petitioner contends that some papers were manufactured to show that the meeting of the Executive Committee was held on 14th September, 1981, although the same was not convened at his instance. 7. However, by an order dated 25th January, 1981, the Registrar, trade Union allowed the scheme of amalgamation of the aforementioned two trade Unions (Annexure-1 ). 8. Shri Kamal Rai filed a writ petition in this Court being CWJC no.1595 of 1982 and the matter was disposed of by (sic) one of us (S. B. Sinha, J.) by judgment dated 16-9-1987 whereby the matter was remitted to the respondent No.1 for determination of his objection which was Anne-xure-10 to the said application and Annexure-8 to the present writ application ; within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of a copy of said judgment. 9. As the Registrar, Trade Union did not dispose of the representation of the petitioner within the time granted by this court, an application for initiation of a proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1973, filed which was registered as M. J. C. No 978 of 1990 The said application was disposed of with direction that the representation of the petitioner must be disposed of within one month. Thereafter the impugned order dated 6-6-1991 as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ application has been passed. 10. The contention of the petitioner is that Registrar, Trade Union in passing the impugned order as contained in Annexure-1 has neither assigned any reason nor has taken into consideration the documents filed on behalf of the parties. 11. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.1, wherein it has been contended that Annexure-2 is not the order passed by the Registrar, Trade Union but the same is merely a letter of communication and the order is contained in Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit. 12. It has further been contended as follows:- "that with regards to the statements made in paragraph No.32 and 33, it is stated that the enquiry as directed of the Hon ble High court started on 20-2-1991 when Shri Kamal Rai, petitioner in cwjc No.1595/1982 requested for time for filing the documents. 12. It has further been contended as follows:- "that with regards to the statements made in paragraph No.32 and 33, it is stated that the enquiry as directed of the Hon ble High court started on 20-2-1991 when Shri Kamal Rai, petitioner in cwjc No.1595/1982 requested for time for filing the documents. Next date for enquiry was fixed for 10-3-93 on account of the date fixed being declared a gazetted holiday, the enquiry was taken up on 20-3-91 Next date was fixed for 3-4-91, when the parties to the dispute were heard in detail and they were directed to file documents in their favour. On perusal of such documents and on the basis of hearing of parties in dispute, the Registrar, Trade Union recorded his findings on 6-5-91 (copy or the extract of file No.8/t2-10185/90 page 44-N to 46-N enclosed as Annexure-I ). That with regards to the statements made in paragraph 35 it is stated that during enquiry as per directive of the Hon ble High Court in CWJC No.1395/82 it transpired from the documents produced before the Labour Commissioner-cum-Registrar of Trade unions that although Shri Kamal Rai was removed from the post of the General Secretary by the Executive Committee of the union on 20-5-1981, his removal was finally approved by the general Body meeting of the Union on 25-5-1981. According to the Constitution of the Union such removals are subject to approval of the General Body meeting of the Union. With this view it has been mentioned in the impugned order that Sri kamal Rai was removed from the post of the General Secretary by the General Body meeting dated 25-5-1981. " 13. A counter-affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the respondent no.2. In that counter-affidavit it has been contended that a general meeting of the union was held on 1-7-1981 which have total number of membership 1805 and similarly a general meeting of the Sangh was held on 30th August, 1981 which had 641 members on its rolls and a decision was unanimously reached to get themselves dissolved and amalgamated in one union in the name and style of Ramethwar Jute Mill Mazdoor Sangh. Thereafter an application was filed by 7 members of both the Trade Union alongwith the resolutions thereof as contained in Annexures A, A/1 and A/2 to the said counter-affidavit. 14. According to the respondent No.2 thereafter the Registrar. Thereafter an application was filed by 7 members of both the Trade Union alongwith the resolutions thereof as contained in Annexures A, A/1 and A/2 to the said counter-affidavit. 14. According to the respondent No.2 thereafter the Registrar. Trade Union and also the Deputy Registrar, Trade Union by their two letters as contained in Annexures A/3 and A/4 to the said counter-affidavit directed the Labour Superintendent, Samastipur, to make an enquiry and after the enquiry report was received, an order of amalgamation as contained in annexure-1 to the writ application was passed. The said amalgamated Union was also given a registration number being registration No.2569 on 25th january, 1982. 15. It has been pointed out that Shri Kamal Rai never raised any objection with regard to proposal of amalgamation of the two unions nor raised any objection when the registration certificate was issued. 16. The Trade Unions Act, 1926 was enacted to provide for registration of the Trade Union and in certain respects to define the law relating to registered Trade Union. Sections 24 and 25 of the said Act reads as follows :- "24. Amalgamation of Trade Union.-Any two or more registered Trade unions may become amalgamated together as one Trade Union with or without dissolution of division of the funds of such trade Unions or either or any of them provided that the votes at least one-half of the members of each or every such Trade union entitled to vote are recorded, and that at least sixty per cent of the votes recorded are in favour of the proposal.25. Notice of change of name or amalgamation.- (1) Notice in writing of every change of name and of every amalgamation signed, in the case of a change of name, by the Secretary and by seven members of the Trade Union changing its name, and, in the case of an amalgamation by the Secretary, and by seven members of each and every Trade Union which is a party thereto, shall be sent to the Registrar, and where the head office of the amalgamated Trade Union is situated in a different state, to the Registrar of such State. (2) If the proposed name is identical with that by which any other existing Trade Union has been registered or, in the opinion of the Registrar, so nearly resembles such name as to be likely to deceive the public or the members of either Trade Union, the Registrar shall refuse to register the change of name. (3) Save as provided in sub-section (2), the Registrar shall, if he is satisfied that the provisions of this Act in respect of change of name have been complied with, register the change of name in the register referred to in Sec.8, and, the change of name shall have effect from the date of such registration. (4) The Registrar of the State in which the Head Office of the amalgamated Trade Union is situated shall, if he is satisfied that the provisions of this Act in respect of the amalgamation have been complied with and that the Trade Union formed thereby is entitled to registration under Sec.6, register the Trade union in the manner provided in Sec.8 and the amalgamation shall have effect from the date of such registration. " 17. Section 26 of the said Act provides for the effect of the change in the name and amalgamation. 18. In this case the only question which has been raised that no meeting was held at the instance of Shri Kamal Rai who was said to be the General Secretary of the Sangh at the material time. 19. It is now well known that the question as to whether there had been a valid meeting of the general dody leading to election of office bearers can fall for determination of the Registrar of Trade Union in view of section 28 of the said Act. 20. A Division Bench of this Court in Mukund Ram Tanti V/s. Registrar, trade Unions, reported in AIR 1962 Pat 338 (sic) held as follows:- "it also appears from certain provisions of the Act, though not specifically, but impliedly that it is a part of the duty of the registrar of the Trade Unions to record the changes of the office-bearers in the appropriate register in order to discharge his duties under the Act. Section31 (1) of the Act provides for penalties for failure to submit returns. Section31 (1) of the Act provides for penalties for failure to submit returns. Sec.33 (2) lays down that no court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act, unless complaint thereof has been made by, or with the previous sanction of, the Registrar, in the case of an offence under Sec.32, by the person to whom the copy was given, within six months of the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed. It, therefore, appears, that, if there is a failure to submit return as required under Sec.28 of the Act, the officers of the Trade Union have to be prosecuted with the previous sanction of the Registrar under the act. According to Regulation 14, the returns have to be submitted to the Registrar by the 31st day of July in each year. It is conceded that the old office bearers continue up to the 31st day of March of a particular year and 1st day of April of that year. It is, therefore, manifest that the returns required by Sec.28 of the Act, which have to be filed by the 31st of july in each year, will have to be filed by the new office-bearers, although the statements made in returns related to the period when the old office-bearers were functioning. If, therefore, the new office bearers do not submit the returns, they may have to be prosecuted with the previous sanction of the Registrar for failure to submit the same, and, in order that the Registrar could give sanction for prosecution of such new office bearers, it is essential and a part of his duty to ascertain and know who those new office-bearers were. In other words, the Registrar, for the purpose of the Act, has to maintain an up to date register recording the name of the office-bearers existing at the relevant time. Without maintaining such register with names of new office-bearers substituted for the old ones, the registers, in my opinion, cannot be expected to see that the provisions of the Act have been legally complied with. In substituting the names of the new officer-bearers the Registrar has. therefore, to find of those new office-bearers were legally elected because, if their election is not legal there may be a grave doubt whether they could be prosecuted for failure to submit the returns. In substituting the names of the new officer-bearers the Registrar has. therefore, to find of those new office-bearers were legally elected because, if their election is not legal there may be a grave doubt whether they could be prosecuted for failure to submit the returns. "it is obvious, therefore, that, on being informed about the election of the new office-bearers the Registrar is within this right to ascertain whether they were legally elected so as to be recorded in the register maintained for the purpose and to be bound for compliance of the provisions of the Act. In other words, the registrar has full jurisdiction to enquire about the legality of the new election for the purpose of maintaining a proper register showing the names of the office-bearers who may be at the relevant time required to comply with the provisions of the act or to be dealt with in accordance therewith. In this particular case, the order of the Registrar clearly shows that the election of the new office-bearers was not accepted by him to be legal only for the purpose of maintenance of records in his office to facilitate the administration under the Act. " 20. In this case it has been brought on records that the matter was got enquired into by the Registrar Trade Union by the Labour superintendent, Samastipur It further appears from Annexure A to the counter affidavit that both the parties were given an opportunity of hearing and all the documents produced by them have also been taken into consideration. In terms of the provisions of the bye laws (sic) of this Trade Union, normally an election has to be held every year. It is unlikely that since 1981 no election of the Sangh had been held. " 21. It is the assertion of the respondent that Shri Kamal Rai was removed as General Secretary of the Sangh in the year 1981 itself. Shri kamal Rai, therefore, could file a suit in the Civil Court questioning his expulsion as also the validity of the meeting, if any. He has not chosen to do so. 22. " 21. It is the assertion of the respondent that Shri Kamal Rai was removed as General Secretary of the Sangh in the year 1981 itself. Shri kamal Rai, therefore, could file a suit in the Civil Court questioning his expulsion as also the validity of the meeting, if any. He has not chosen to do so. 22. From a bare perusal of the order as contained in Annexure A to the counter-affidavit, it appears that the Registrar Trade Union having taken into consideration all aspects of the matter held that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it was not necessary to review the order passed by his predecessor in office. 23. By reason of the impugned order as contained in Annexure 2 to the writ application merely the decision of the Registrar Trade Union was communicated to the petitioner but the same is not the order itself. 24. It is now well known that when a statutory functionary (sic)performs a statutory function, the same can be subject matter of scrutiny by a writ court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India only of the same is mala fide or contains an error of record in arriving at its decision or is (sic) the statutory functionary has taken into consideration irrelevant matters or fails to take into consideration the relevant facts. Neither any such point has been raised in the writ petition nor the learned counsel for the petitioner has been able to point out any infirmity in the order as contained in Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit. 25. This court while exercising its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, does not function as a court of appeal. It is not concerned with the decision of the statutory authority but with the decision-making process. 26. Further as the amalgamated Union had been functioning Since 1982 and has been granted a new registered certificate, in my opinion, it is not a fit case where this court should exercise its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Canstitution of India. 27. For the reasons aforementioned, this application is dismissed. 28. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Application Dismissed.