JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners Sri B. R. Singh and the learned Counsel Sri P.K. Sinha appearing for respondent no 1 and Sri Navneet Agarwal learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 and Sri Suresh Kumar Upadhyay learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4. 2. The petitioners who claim themselves to be the members of the union, feel aggrieved by an order passed by the Registrar on 15.11.2006, by means of which he has recalled his earlier order dated 18.8.2006 and has registered the Union as per the provisions of Section 8 of the Trade Union Act, 1926. 3. The argument assailing the aforesaid order raised by the petitioners Counsel is that once the Registrar has refused to register the union on the complaint being made the Registrar was having no power to review the order and to register the Union. 4. Learned Counsel does not dispute that the registration of union under Section 8 of the Trade Unions Act is an administrative function which obliges the Registrar to register a Trade Union, if Union complies with all the requirements of the Act in regard to the registration. 5. The requirement under the Act, in regard to registration is mainly provided under Sections 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Act. Section 4 prescribes the minimum requirement of the members for forming a Trade Union which can be registered, whereas Section 5 deals with the application of the registration. Sub-clause (2) of Section 5 of Trade Union Act says that where a Trade Union has been in existence for more than one year before the making of an application for its registration, there shall be delivered to the Registrar, together with the application, a general statement of the assets and liabilities of the Trade Union prepared in such form and containing such particulars as may be prescribed. Section 6 is the relevant provision which can be brought into play by the Registrar for finding out as to whether the Executive Committee of the Union has been formed in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules provided therein. Section 6 is the relevant provision which can be brought into play by the Registrar for finding out as to whether the Executive Committee of the Union has been formed in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules provided therein. Section 7 gives power to the Registrar to call for further particulars and to require alterations of names under the given circumstances, wherein Section 8, which reads as under; gives power to the Registrar for registering a Trade Union on being satisfied that the trade union has complied with all the requirements of this Act. “8. Registration—The Registrar, on being satisfied that the Trade Union has complied with all the requirements of this Act in regard to registration, shall register the Trade Union by entering in a register, to be maintained in such form as may be prescribed, the particulars relating to the Trade Union contained in the statement accompanying the application for registration." 6. In the case of Raymond Synthetics Karamchari Sangh, Karchhana and another v. Registrar, Trade Unions, U.P. Kanpur and others, 1994 (68) FLR 1090, a learned single Judge of this Court has held that under Section 8 of the Trade Unions Act the power of the Registrar is administrative in nature and is not quasi judicial. The relevant observation is made in para 3 as under : “3. In a bare reading of Sections 5, 7 and 8 of the Act makes it clear that it is not incumbent upon the Registrar Trade Unions to hear the existing unions before registering a trade union under Section 8 of the Act. The power is administrative in nature and is not quasi judicial. In this regard this Court endorses the view of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Kesoram Rayon Workmens’ Union v. Registrar of Trade Union and others, as also the view taken by our own High Court in the case of North Eastern Railway Mazdoor Rail Mazdoor Bhawan Aligar, Gorakhpur v. Registrar of Trade Unions Kanpur and others, and North Eastern Railway Employees Union Gorakhpur and another v. Registrar of Trade Unions U.P. Kanpur and others.” 7. Speaking on the power of appropriate Government to refer a dispute under Section 10 (1) of the Act, the apex Court in the case of Avon Services Production Agencies v. Industrial Tribunal, Haryana and others, (1979) 1 SCC 1 , has observed as under : “This is an administrative function of the Government as the expression is understood in contradistinction to judicial or quasi-judicial function. Merely because the Government rejects a request for a reference or declines to make a reference, it cannot be said that the industrial dispute has ceased to exist, nor could it be said to be a review of any judicial or quasi-judicial order or determination. The industrial dispute may nonetheless continue to remain in existence and if at a subsequent stage the appropriate Government is satisfied that in the interest of industrial peace and for promoting industrial harmony it is desirable to make a reference, the appropriate Government does not lack power to do so under Section 10(1), nor is it precluded from making the reference on the only ground that on an earlier occasion it had declined to make the reference.” 8. It so appears that the elections of the Union were conducted as per bye-laws/rules after which the elected Executive/Committee of Management presented its papers in the prescribed proforma for registration under Section 8 of the Act but before the registration could be effected by the Registrar, some aggrieved persons like the petitioners filed certain objections persuading the Registrar not to register the Trade Union. These objections were apparently that the petitioner and like persons who were the members of the General body, were not allowed to vote and therefore, the elections were invalid. The Registrar, on the basis of the said complaint, without issuing any notice to the elected body or to its any office bearer merely on their suggestions refused registration by observing in its order that the elections were not properly held. This order is dated 18.8.2006. 9. The Registrar, on the basis of the said complaint, without issuing any notice to the elected body or to its any office bearer merely on their suggestions refused registration by observing in its order that the elections were not properly held. This order is dated 18.8.2006. 9. On being faced with the refusal of registration, the Trade Union through its President/Secretary, moved an application for registration and for recalling the aforesaid order on various grounds including the ground that all the objections which have been raised by these persons are non est and non-existent and that the election has taken place in accordance with the relevant rules and that all the said 38 persons were not the members of the Union for which the elections had taken place. The elected body further raised the objection before the Registrar, that the persons who had objected the registration, were casual labours and they were members of a separate Union. 10. The Registrar on being satisfied about the explanation given by the elected body and on being convinced that the registration could not have been refused on such ground and with a view to rectify the mistake which was committed by him passed the impugned order, ordering for registration of the Union. 11. We, therefore, find that rectifying the mistake or an error which had crept in resulting in the order, refusing registration on 18.8.2006 could very well have been corrected by the Registrar and no illegality can be said to have been committed by him in case after satisfying himself on the objections raised by the petitioner or like persons and on being satisfied that no illegality was committed in the elections. 12. Having not been successful in the present argument, the learned Counsel for the petitioner at this juncture submitted that the Registrar while passing the order of registration and while recalling the earlier order did not issue any notice to the petitioners and like members and had passed the order at their back. 13. The order of refusal of registration was passed without opportunity to the petitioners and the Registrar on being apprised about the illegality committed or occurred because of the passing of the said order ordered for registration the plea therefore, fails. 14. 13. The order of refusal of registration was passed without opportunity to the petitioners and the Registrar on being apprised about the illegality committed or occurred because of the passing of the said order ordered for registration the plea therefore, fails. 14. The question of filing of an appeal against the order of refusal to register the Trade Union, would also not arise in such a case where no opportunity was afforded to the elected body who had applied for registration and whose application was not registered on the objection filed by such persons who were not even the members and who were not allowed to participate in the election. The Registrar was thus, fully competent to register the Union on being satisfied that the necessary condition for such registration, stands complied with. Relegating the petitioner to the remedy of appeal, at this stage, would also mean their deprivation from being registered, till disposal of appeal, though they had every right to have the registration. The plea of appeal under the facts and circumstances would also not come in the way of the elected body. 15. Section 6 in its entirety lays down the requirements which are to be seen by the Registrar for the purpose of finding out as to whether the election of the elected body has been held in consonance with the provisions of the Act and the Regulations framed thereunder and ancillary to this enquiry, the Registrar may look into the plea regarding validity of the election under the relevant Rules. The Registrar would also be entitled to look into the Rules and the bye-laws of the Society. 16. The Registrar under the Act and in particular under Section 6 has the power to see that the Executive of the Trade Union has been constituted in accordance with the provisions of the Trade Unions Act and the Rules thereof, for the matters enumerated in sub-clause (2) of Section 6. The power of Registrar under the Trade Unions Act cannot be extended for adjudicating election disputes. In case any person feels aggrieved by the election of the Executive, or is aggrieved by the exclusion or non-inclusion as a member he would have to seek his remedy in the appropriate forum as may be provided under the law namely; bye laws or the Rules thereof. 17. In case any person feels aggrieved by the election of the Executive, or is aggrieved by the exclusion or non-inclusion as a member he would have to seek his remedy in the appropriate forum as may be provided under the law namely; bye laws or the Rules thereof. 17. While dealing with the application of registration of the Trade Union, the Registrar would exercise only that power which has been conferred upon him under the Act and would not travel beyond the prescribed limits. The exercise of power under Section 8 is purely administrative and it does not oblige the Registrar to necessarily issue notice to any person who is allegedly aggrieved by the election held. 18. In this regard it may be relevant to mention here that Sri P.K. Sinha has drawn attention of this Court to the order dated 13.7.2006 passed by the Returning Officer which says that these persons (objectors) are not validly enrolled members of the Union as they had not shown any admit card nor the membership Register has been produced and only receipts of membership fee have been shown. This order was passed on 13.7.2006 whereas the elections were held on 18.8.2006. The members/petitioners though were in full knowledge of the aforesaid order of the Returning Officer, did not challenge the same in appropriate forum. 19. The plea of the petitioners that since they were not allowed to vote and participate in the election, therefore, the election held on 18.8.2006 was invalid, could not have been adjudicated upon by the Registrar in the present proceedings for registration. 20. The petitioners or like members, if were aggrieved by their exclusion from election they could have challenged the election itself in appropriate forum or might have taken such recourse against the orders of the Returning Officer as otherwise would have been available under law. Such an objection against registration of the Union was not at all tenable. The refusal by the Registrar to register the Union on the aforesaid objection of the petitioners and like persons was itself an act without jurisdiction and authority which has been subsequently corrected by ordering registration. 21. The order impugned in the writ petition dated 15.11.2006, thus, does not call for any interference. The petition is dismissed. ————