Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 501 (CAL)

HINTERLAND SEAMEN UNION v. UNION OF INDIA

2007-07-09

BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA

body2007
( 1 ) BY this writ-application, the writ-petitioner, a Trade Union, has challenged the order dated 4th August, 2006 passed by the Special Secretary (Labour), by which it is found that the private-respondent is entitled to participate in the election of the Seamen Association as a. lawful Trade Union. ( 2 ) THE writ-petitioner alleged that the private-respondent was not in existence since 1998 and as such, was not entitled to participate in the process of election. ( 3 ) A previous writ-application being W. P. No. 9141 (W) of 2006, filed by these writ-petitioners, was disposed of by directing that in the event any objection was raised by the writ-petitioners before the Returning Officer after the election was over, the said objection would be considered by the Labour secretary, Andaman and Nicobar Administration independently irrespective of the findings which were arrived at by the Labour Commissioner while recording the minutes of the meeting held on 10th April, 2006. ( 4 ) PURSUANT to such decision, an objection having been raised by the writ-petitioners, notice was served upon the concerned parties and by the order impugned herein, the Special Secretary (Labour) has disposed of the objection raised by the petitioners thereby holding that the private-respondent was a lawful Trade Union and was therefore, entitled to participate in the election of the union. ( 5 ) BEING dissatisfied, the writ-petitioners have come up with the present writ-application. ( 6 ) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record, it appears from record that the grievance of the writ-petitioners is that the private-respondent is a non-existent Union as will be reflected from the fact that it has not submitted the annual return or audited account for many years and according to it, for the breach of such duty cast upon a Trade Union, the Registration of the private-respondent should be withdrawn. In this connection, I find substance in the contention of the Mr. Bahadur, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the private-respondent, that for non-submission of such return, the only penalty that is provided in the Statute is in terms of a fine, but, for such non-submission of return, the Registration of the Trade Union cannot be cancelled. In this connection, I find substance in the contention of the Mr. Bahadur, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the private-respondent, that for non-submission of such return, the only penalty that is provided in the Statute is in terms of a fine, but, for such non-submission of return, the Registration of the Trade Union cannot be cancelled. ( 7 ) IN the case before us, an attested copy of the Registration certificate was placed before the officer concerned indicating that the Private respondent is a Registered Trade Union since the year 1983. In this case, no evidence has been produced to show that such Registration has been cancelled or that the said Trade Union has been merged or amalgamated with any other Trade Union in accordance with law once the Registration of a Trade Union is admitted and it is also admitted that the Trade Union was functioning at least up to the year 1998, it is for the person challenging the existence of such Trade Union to place sufficient materials to show that the said Trade Union is no longer in existence. ( 8 ) I, therefore, find that the concerned respondent in the facts of the present case, in the absence of any such materials placed before him, rightly concluded that the private-respondent is a lawful registered Trade Union and is entitled to participate in the process of election. It may not be out of place to mention here that in the last election it is the private-respondent who had the majority support of the employees. ( 9 ) I, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the concerned respondent. ( 10 ) IN view of disposal of the writ application itself, the connected application for interim order has become infructuous and the same is also disposed of accordingly. ( 11 ) THERE will be no order as to costs. .