Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 536 (JHR)

Usha Alloy Mazdoor Sangh v. State Of Jharkhand

2007-07-05

N.N.TIWARI

body2007
ORDER N.N. Tiwari, J. 1. It has been submitted that the impugned order of both the writ petitions is common and in both the writ petitions the petitioners have made common prayer for quashing the order issued under Memo No. 127 dated 27.1.2007 (An-nexure-10) passed by the Labour Commissioner-cum-Registrar, Trade Union, Jharkhand, Ranchi. 2. The short point taken by Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in both the cases, is that the impugned order is wholly arbitrary, illegal and violative of the principle of natural justice. Learned Counsel submitted that the said order has been passed without giving any notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. It has been submitted that the petitioners are the Trade Union and are highly interested in the subject matter of these writ petitions. In fact, the question has been raised for non- holding of elections by the petitioners-Union and in that view, they are highly interested in the matter and are aggrieved by the impugned order. The Labour Com-missioner-cum-Registrar without giving them any notice and opportunity of hearing has passed the said order behind their back. The impugned order is, thus, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice and is a nullity. 3. Mr. P. Modi, learned G.R-I appearing on behalf of the State-respondents, fairly admitted the said position and submitted that the petitioners have not been heard before passing the said order. Learned Counsel submitted that the petitioners may be given an opportunity of hearing and the matter may be remanded to the Labour Commissioner-cum-Registrar, Trade Union, Jharkhand to hear all the interested parties afresh and for taking a fresh decision. 4. Mr. Sumit Kumar Gadodia, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the intervener-respondents, however, disputed the facts stated by learned Counsel for the petitioners and submitted that the petitioners had due knowledge and notice about the said matter. 5. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and considering the materials available on record, I find no such material to agree with the said submission of Mr. S.K. Gadodia. There is nothing on record to show that any notice was issued by the Labour Commissioner-cum-Registrar before passing the impugned order. 6. It is, however, admitted by all the parties that the matter relates to the disputes of fact as to whether there was election of the officer bearers of the petitioners-Union. S.K. Gadodia. There is nothing on record to show that any notice was issued by the Labour Commissioner-cum-Registrar before passing the impugned order. 6. It is, however, admitted by all the parties that the matter relates to the disputes of fact as to whether there was election of the officer bearers of the petitioners-Union. On perusal of the impugned order also it does not appear that any notice was issued or any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners-Union before passing the impugned order. Learned G.P.-I has also fairly submitted that there is nothing on record to show that any notice was sent to the petitioners. 7. Considering the above, there is no difficulty in holding that the impugned order has been passed without giving any notice and without affording any opportunity of representation-hearing to the petitioners. The impugned order is, thus, violative of the principles of natural justice and is unsustainable. The impugned order is, hereby, quashed. The matter is remitted to the Labour Commissioner-cum-Registrar, Trade Union, Jharkhand for fresh hearing and disposal of the matter in accordance with law after giving due notice and sufficient opportunity of hearing to all the parties.