ORDER S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. As both the cases relate to election of Office Bearers of Mecon Employees Union (Hqrs.), they were heard together and are being disposed of by the common order. 2. C.W.J.C. No. 1769 of 2001 has been preferred by Mecon Employees Union through its President, H. Sumbroy, wherein it has challenged the letter dated 25th April, 2001 issued by the Additional Commission-cum-Additional Registrar, Trade Unions, Jharkhand, whereby and whereunder, he stayed the election of Mecon Employees Union. It has also challenged the letter dated 27th April, 2000 issued by the same Officer, whereby and whereunder, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Mecon Ltd. has been asked- to forward the list of permanent non-executive employees for early election of the Union. 3. Shri Jagdish Ram of W.P. (L) No. 2354 of 2001 has challenged the order dated 25th May, 2001 passed by Labour Commissioner-cum-Registrar, Trade Unions, Jharkhand circulated vide Memo No. 624 dated 1st June, 2001, whereby and whereunder, the order contained in letter No. 182 dated 25th April, 2001 and the consequential letter no. nil dated 9th May, 2001 issued respectively by Additional Registrar, Trade Unions and Labour Enforcement Officer were set aside, allowing the Union to resume election as per the provisions of Trade Union Act, 1926 as well as the provisions of the Constitution of the Union. 4. To determine the cases, it is not necessary to look into all the facts, claim and counter claim of the parties, as mere a question of law is involved. 5. There appears to be a dispute amongst the earlier members of the Union. One Sri H. Sumbroy through whom C.W.J.C. No. 1769/ 2001 has been filed, while claims to be the President of the Union and impleaded Jagdish Ram as Respondent No. 5 in the said case, said Jagdish Ram being petitioner in W.P. (L) No. 2354/2001, termed Shri S. Sumbroy as former President and impleaded him as Respondent No. 5 in his writ petition. 6. There appears to be no dispute that Shri H. Sumbroy was elected as President of the Union in March, 1999. A show cause notice dated 12th March, 2000 was issued on petitioner Jagdish Ram by Sri H. Sumbroy, President of Union levelling certain allegations against him. Subsequently, the membership of petitioner Jagdish Ram was suspended for four years by letter dated 31st March. 2001. 7. A show cause notice dated 12th March, 2000 was issued on petitioner Jagdish Ram by Sri H. Sumbroy, President of Union levelling certain allegations against him. Subsequently, the membership of petitioner Jagdish Ram was suspended for four years by letter dated 31st March. 2001. 7. According to petitioner Jagdish Ram, the term of the President Shri H. Sumbroy expired on 18th March, 2000 and he had no jurisdiction to decide the allegation. It is also alleged that though the petitioner Jagish Ram prepared show cause reply on 19th March, 2001 but Shri H. Sumbroy refused to receive the same. 8. The petitioner Jagdish Ram brought the entire fact to the notice of the Labour Commissioner but, in the meantime, Shri H. Sumbroy, the President of the Union having initiated process of election fixing 18th April. 2001 as the last date for filing nomination, petitioner Jagdish Ram moved this Court in C.W.J.C. 1625 of 2001. This Court vide order dated 24th April, 2001 taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner Jagdish Ram had already approached the Additional Labour Commissioner-cum-Additional Registrar Trade Unions, Jharkhand, observed that the authority is expected to pass orders immediately, taking into consideration the ensuing election. It is only thereafter the Additional Labour Commissioner-cum-Additional Registrar Trade Unions, Jharkhand issued impugned letter on 25th April, 2001 in giving reference of C.W.J.C. No. 1625 of 2001, stayed the election. He appointed one Shri Satyendra Kumar Singh, Labour Enforcement Officer, as a Returning Officer for getting the election of Union conducted, who started process of election, vide letter dated 9th May 2001. The Mecon Employees Union moved before the Labour Commissioner-cum- Registrar Trade Unions, Jharkhand against letter dated 25th April, 2001 and the letter by which process of election was started by Satyendra Kumar Singh dated 9th May, 2001. While the matter remained pending, the present writ petition, C.W.J.C. 1769 of 2001 was preferred by Mecon Employees Union against the same very letter dated 25th April. 2001. 9. During the pendency of the 1st case, the Labour Commissioner-cum-Registrar Trade Unions, vide order dated 25th May, 2001 set aside the letter dated 25th April, 2001 and letter dated 9th May, 2001 issued respectively by Additional Registrar Trade Unions and Shri Satyendra Kumar Singh, Labour Enforcement Officer, which gave rise of filing 2nd writ petition W.P. (L) 2354 of 2001, preferred by petitioner Jagdish Ram. 10. 10. In view of order of Labour Commissioner-cum-Registrar Trade Unions, Jharkhand dated 25th May, 2001, as communicated vide Memo No. 624 dated 1st June, 2001, the substantive relief sought for in C.W.J.C. No. 1769 of 2001 become infructuous. However, it was pressed by the petitioner of the said case, as according to it, if the order dated 25th May, 2001 is set aside, the impugned letter dated 25th April, 2001 shall revive. 11. The main ground taken by the petitioner Mecon Employees Union to assail the letter dated 25th April. 2001 and consequential letter dated 27th April, 2001 is that the Addl. Labour Commissioner-cum-Additional Registrar Trade Unions, Jharkhand has no jurisdiction to interfere in the day-today affairs of the Union, including the matter relating to election of the its office bearers. 12. The petitioner Jagdish Ram, on the other hand, assailed the order dated 25th May, 2001, communicated vide Memo No. 624 dated 1st June, 2001 on the ground that the Addl. Labour Commissioner and Labour Commissioner being authority of same rank, the Labour Commissioner had no jurisdiction to review and/or sit in appeal over an order passed by the Addl. Labour Commissioner. 13. The counsel for the petitioner Jagdish Ram, placed reliance on Patna High Courts decision in P.K. Balmuchu v. State of Bihar, reported in 2000 (3) PLJR 457 , wherein the Court taking into consideration the provisions of Section 28 of Trade Union Act, 1926 and Regulation 11(i) of Bihar Regulation, held that the Labour Commissioner-cum-Registrar of Trade Union and Additional Registrar of Trade Unions, both constitute the same office of Registrar under the Act and, therefore, it is not proper and valid for the later to have reviewed the order, passed by the former, when no new materials were placed before it. 14. The counsel for the petitioner Jagdish Ram, who is also respondent in the connected writ petition, joined hands with the State to submit that the Registrar, Trade Unions has Jurisdiction to interfere with the dispute of Union and for which reliance was placed on Section 28 of the Trade Union Act, 1926, which reads as follows :-- "28. 14. The counsel for the petitioner Jagdish Ram, who is also respondent in the connected writ petition, joined hands with the State to submit that the Registrar, Trade Unions has Jurisdiction to interfere with the dispute of Union and for which reliance was placed on Section 28 of the Trade Union Act, 1926, which reads as follows :-- "28. Returns.--(1) There shall be sent annually to the Registrar on or before such date as may be prescribed, a general statement audited in the prescribed manner, of all receipts and expenditure of every registered Trade Union during the year ending on the 31st day of December next preceding such prescribed date, and of the assets and liabilities of the Trade Union existing on such 31st day of December. The statement shall be prepared in such form of December. The statement shall be prepared in such form and shall comprise such particulars as may be prescribed. (2) Together with the general statement there shall be sent to the Registrar a statement showing all changes of office-bearers made by the Trade Union during the year to which the general statement refers, together also with a copy of the rules of the Trade Union corrected up to the date of the despatch, thereof to the Registrar. (3) A copy of every alteration made in the rules of a Registered Trade Union shall be sent to the Registrar within fifteen days of the making of the alteration. (4) For the purpose of examining the documents referred to in sub-sections (1), (2) and (3), the Registrar or any officer authorised by him, by general or special order, may at all reasonable time inspect the certificate of registration, account books, registers, and other documents, relating to a Trade Union at its registered office or may require their production at such place as he may specify in this behalf, but no such place shall be at a distance of more than ten miles from its registered office of a Trade Union." 15. The aforesaid provision i.e. Section 28 fell for consideration before the Courts from time to time. The Supreme Court in N.E. Railway Employees Union v. 3rd Addl. District Judge, Farukhabad, AIR 1988 SC 2117 , held that the Registrar of Trade Unions is authority charged with duty of administer provisions of Act. 16. The aforesaid provision i.e. Section 28 fell for consideration before the Courts from time to time. The Supreme Court in N.E. Railway Employees Union v. 3rd Addl. District Judge, Farukhabad, AIR 1988 SC 2117 , held that the Registrar of Trade Unions is authority charged with duty of administer provisions of Act. 16. Similar view was taken by a Division Bench of Patna High Court in the case of Mukund Ram Tanti v. S.I. Raza, Registrar, Trade Unions, reported in AIR 1962 Pat 338 . The petitioner, in that case, claimed to be the newly elected President of a Union, elected at the Unions general meeting held on 27th February, 1960. The respondents 2 to 7 of the said case were the old office bearers and continued in the office till the date the general meeting was allegedly held electing the petitioner of the said case as the new President. 17. The old office bearers refused to accept the election valid which led to a dispute. In such a situation, the Registrar. Trade Unions issued notices to the parties to appear before him with the materials in support of their claim. On the facts and circumstances, the Registrar made observations in favour of respondents 2 to 7 of the said cage, which was challenged by petitioner on the ground that the Registrar. Trade Unions had no authority, in law, or jurisdiction to hold an enquiry as to the legality of the election and to pass an order directing the old office bearers to continue till a fresh election was held. The Patna High Court held that under the provisions of the Act, though not specifically, but impliedly, it was part of duty of the Registrar of Trade Unions to record the changes of the office bearers in the appropriate Register, in order to discharge his duty under the Act and in that view it further held that the Registrar has the jurisdiction to enquire about the legality of new election for the purpose of maintaining a proper Register showing the names of the Office Bearers. The Registrar may not accept the new Office bearers only for the purpose of maintenance of records in his office to facilitate the administration under the Act. 18. The Registrar may not accept the new Office bearers only for the purpose of maintenance of records in his office to facilitate the administration under the Act. 18. Both the aforesaid cases of Mukund Ram Tanti, AIR 1962 Pat 338 and N.E. Railway Employees Union AIR 1988 SC 2117 , were taken into consideration by a Division Bench of Patna High Court in the case of Bokaro Steel Workers Union v. The State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 1995 (1) PLJR 400. Explaining the Supreme Court decision in N.E. Railway Union (supra), while the Division Bench relied on the decision in Mukund Ram Tanti (supra), held as follows :-- "On an examination and analysis of the Patna decision (Mukund Ram Tantis case), the Allahabad, Andhra and the Madras decisions, I come to the following conclusions : (i) In a dispute between two rival factions claiming to be the office bearers of a union, it is open to the Registrar to hold an enquiry for the purpose of maintaining and up-dating the register as required to be maintained under Section 8 of the Act. (ii) His decision in this regard shall neither confer any right on any person or group of persons nor divest any person or group of persons of any lawful rights. (iii) Consequently the Registrar has no authority or power to issue any direction asking/advising the Labour Department of the Government or the employer to recognise and treat any particular person or group of persons as the duly elected office bearers of the Union in dealing with that Union. (iv) The Registrar, Trade Unions has no authority or power to direct the holding of election of the office bearers of a union under his own supervision or under the supervision of his nominee. (v) In the absence of any provision in the Trade Unions Act, any dispute of this kind can only be resolved by means of a suit filed before a civil Court. (vi) The adjudication in a suit at least in this State is normally a slow and time consuming process and does not constitute a wholly satisfactory remedy for resolving the dispute. (vii) The legislature will, therefore, be well advised to address itself to this lacuna in the Trade Unions Act and to take steps to remedy it which has been long overdue." 19. (vii) The legislature will, therefore, be well advised to address itself to this lacuna in the Trade Unions Act and to take steps to remedy it which has been long overdue." 19. In subsequent case, i.e. Bokaro Steel Workers Union, v. State of Binar and others, reported in 2000 (1) LLJ Pat 133, the Patna High Court held that under Section 28 of the Act, Registrar has no authority to adjudicate as to which group of office bearers was validity elected, nor can direct the office bearers to hold election or nominate its nomination to supervise the election. Such dispute can only be resolved by means of civil suit. 20. Admittedly, the impugned order, contained in letters dated 25th April, 2001 and 27th April, 2001 were issued by the Additional Commissioner-cum- Additional Registrar, Trade Unions not for enquiry under Section 28 of the Act to maintain the list of office bearers in his Register. It directly interfered with the election of the Union which power was not vested with him. In the aforesaid background and in view of the both the decisions in Bokaro Steel Workers (supra), both the orders being without jurisdiction, the letters dated 25th April, 2001 and 27th April. 2001 as enclosed with C.W.J.C. No. 1769 of 2001 are set aside. 21. So far as the order dated 25th May, 2001 issued by the Labour Commissioner-cum-Registrar. Trade Unions, Jharkhand communicated, vide Memo No. 624 dated 1st June, 2000 is concerned, the authority having held the letters dated 25th April, 2001 and 9th May, 2001 being illegal and beyond propriety, set aside the orders. The Court finds no illegality in the order passed by the Labour Commissioner-cum-Registrar Trade Unions. By last part of the order, as he merely allowed the Union to resume election, as per provisions of the Trade Union Act, 1926 and Constitution of the Union, it cannot be held to be interference with the election of Union and thus the order dated 25th May, 2001 issued by the Labour Commissioner-cum-Registrar Trade Unions, Jharkhand requires no interference. 22. In the facts and circumstances, the Mecon Employees Union is given liberty to resume its election, as observed by the Labour Commissioner-cum- Registrar Trade Unions, Jharkhand and may allow the Returning Officer and Assistant Returning Officer as requested and allowed by Mecon Ltd., vide letter dated 7th June, 2001. 22. In the facts and circumstances, the Mecon Employees Union is given liberty to resume its election, as observed by the Labour Commissioner-cum- Registrar Trade Unions, Jharkhand and may allow the Returning Officer and Assistant Returning Officer as requested and allowed by Mecon Ltd., vide letter dated 7th June, 2001. It is expected that the election would be conducted peacefully, immediately and the Registrar Trade Unions, Jharkhand may supervise the election to avoid controversy: 23. In the result, C.W.J.C. No. 1769 of 2001 is allowed and consequently, W.P. (L) No. 2354 of 2001 is dismissed, with the observations, as made above. 24. CWJC 1769/2001 allowed WP(L) 2354/2001 dismissed.