Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1072 (PAT)

Kalyanpur Majdoor Panchayat v. State

2002-10-03

AFTAB ALAM

body2002
Judgment 1. Heard Mr. N. K. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of this writ petition and the J.C. to S. C. VII appearing on behalf of the State; also heard learned counsel appearing for the intervenor. 2. The petitioner claims himself to be the General Secretary of Kalyanpur Majdoor Panchayat, a Trade Union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 . He filed this writ petition challenging a communication dated 17.4.2002 (Annexure-7) from Assistant Labour Commissioner, Dalmia Nagar. The impugned letter was issued on the direction of the Deputy Labour Commis-sioner-cum-Additional Registrar, Trade Union, Bihar and by this letter the Assistant Commissioner fixed the schedule for election of the office bearers of the Union and gave certain directions to the petitioner with regard to holding of the election. 3. During the pendency of this writ application the election was purportedly held in which nominations filed by other candidates were withdrawn, leaving only Radhika Singh (the intervenor) as the sole candidate for the office of General Secretary. The Assistant Labour Commissioner, therefore, by his Letter no. 1818 dated 27.4.2002 informed the Labour Commis-sioner-cum-Registrar, Trade Unions that Radhika Singh was elected unopposed as the General Secretary of the Union. The petitioner then filed an amendment petition bringing on record the letter of the Assistant Labour Commissioner dated 27.4.2002 (Annexure-10/1) and making a prayer for quashing of that letter too. 4. Before proceeding further it may be noted that both the direction for holding election and the declaration that Radhika Singh was elected General Secretary are currently under stay by virtue of an order passed by another Hon ble Judge on 26.6.2002. 5. The controversy seems to have arisen from the direction given by the Labour Commissioner, Bihar, Patna to the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Dalmia Nagar vide his Letter no. 4753, dated 15.9.2000 (Annexure-10) asking him to hold the election of the office bearers of the Union and to make its report to the Labour Commissioner. It appears that no action was taken on that letter and then Radhika Singh came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 12521 of 2000. That writ petition was disposed of by order dated 5.12.2000 without any positive direction by this Court. That was a brief order, which is reproduced below in full: The grievance of the petitioners, in fact, in this writ petition is that in spite of the order of Labour Commissioner, respondent no. That writ petition was disposed of by order dated 5.12.2000 without any positive direction by this Court. That was a brief order, which is reproduced below in full: The grievance of the petitioners, in fact, in this writ petition is that in spite of the order of Labour Commissioner, respondent no. 1, Annexure 5, his order is not being complied with by the Assistant Labour Commissioner. The petitioner, in such a situation, can make a grievance before the respondent no.1 that his order is not being complied with by the authority concerned and if such a petition is filed the respondent no.1, will see that his order is being complied with. With the observation, as indicated above, this application is disposed of. 6. The Respondent authorities read in this order a direction from this Court for holding election of the office bearers of the Union and consequently the Deputy Labour Commissioner issued directions to the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Dalmia Nagar vide Letter no. 688, dated 9.3.2002 (Annexure-3). In pursuance of the directions of the Deputy Labour Commissioner the Assistant Labour Commissioner issued the impugned letter to the petitioner, which finally led to the declaration that Radhika Singh, the intervenor was elected unopposed as General Secretary of the Union. 7. On hearing the counsel for the parties I am of the view that the action of the respondent-authorities was clearly unauthorised and without jurisdiction. The legal position on the issue has been made clear by a Division Bench of this Court in Bokaro Steel Workers Union and another vs. The State of Bihar and others [1995 (1) P.L.J.R. 400]. In that decision a Division Bench of this Court (of which I was a member) on a detailed consideration of the relevant provisions of the law came to find and hold as follows: "22. 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." 8. Learned counsel for the intervenor referred to paragraph 19 of that judgment and submitted that the decision in Bokaro Steel Workers Union had left some scope for holding of election in a Trade Union on the basis of the direction by a court and submitted that in this case the election was held in pursuance of the direction of this Court as contained in the order, dated 5.12.2000 in C.W.J.C. No. 12521 of 2000. The order passed by this Court is quoted above and in that order I find nothing to indicate that this Court gave any order for holding election of the office bearers of the Union. 9. Learned counsel then invited my attention to certain amendments introduced in the Trade Unions Act, 1926 , particularly the provisions contained in Sections 27-B and 28-1A. Those amendments/additions undoubtedly bring about some long awaited and much needed improvements in the parent Trade Unions Act. But those amend- ments/additions in the Act have been made by the State of Madhya Pradesh and not by the Union of India or by this State. Those amendments/additions undoubtedly bring about some long awaited and much needed improvements in the parent Trade Unions Act. But those amend- ments/additions in the Act have been made by the State of Madhya Pradesh and not by the Union of India or by this State. This Court will take this opportunity to once again remind the State Government that it is high time to introduce the amendments/ additions in the Trade Unions Act on the same pattern as made by Madhya Pradesh. 10. On the basis of the discussions made above the impugned direction and declaration as contained in Annexures 7 and 10/1 respectively are held to be invalid and illegal. Those are accordingly set aside. 11. In the result, this writ application is allowed but with no order as to costs.