Judgment 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the State and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents 3 and 4. 2. Petitioner no. 2 came to this Court with a grievance that he was the President of the Trade Union petitioner no. 1. The Trade Union has its own bye-laws. Under the bye-laws the period of office of an elected union is for three years. The petitioner no. 2 was functioning as the President alongwith other office bearers in pursuance of their having been so elected. Certain other members of the Executive Committee, created controversy, locked the union office and did not allow the office bearers to enter the office to discharge their respective duties. Petitioner No. 2 filed Title Suit No. 29 of 2001 before the Court of Munsif, at Rosera, for declaration that the Union represented by him was the sole and correct representative of the Union and authorised office bearers. During pendency of the suit the Registrar, Trade Unions, directed the parties to appear before him. The petitioner no. 2 came to this Court in CWJC No. 10810 of 2001 for quashing the authority of the Registrar which came to be disposed on 28.8.2001 and in pursuance of which the present order of the Registrar impugned at Annexure 1 dated 26.12.2001 came to be passed. 3. By the impugned order the Registrar has directed for holding of the elections of the Union within a prescribed period of two months. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri Shivaji Pandey submitted that the Civil Court was the proper forum for resolution of the dispute with regard to the office bearers of the Trade Union and in view of pendency of the title suit the Registrar, Trade Unions, had no authority to order holding of the election under his own supervision. 5. Learned Counsel Sri Alok Kumar Sinha appearing on behalf of respondents 3 and 4 submitted that though the Trade Unions Act does not provide any modes or procedure for holding of Trade Union elections by the Registrar, the same have been the subject matter of interpretation both by this Court as also by the Apex Court with regard to the manner in which election of Trade Unions can be held to resolve the controversy and restore harmony with the aid of the Trade Union Act. 6. 6. Both Counsel relied upon a Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported in 1995(1) PLJR 401 (Bokaro Steel Workers Union and Anr. vs. State of Bihar and Others) and that of the Supreme Court in (2006)10 SCC 410 (B.C. Sharma and Another vs. B.L. Bhalla and Others). 7. There is one salient aspect which this Court considers proper to take note of. When the petitioner no. 2 came to this Court his tenure in pursuance of his election was subsisting under the bye-laws. The same has run out during pendency of the writ application. This Court on 31.1.2002 passed interim directions that the election may continue but the result shall not be declared. It is not in controversy that the tenure which may have accrued to the successful candidates of the election the results of which were directed not to be disclosed by the interim order, has also run out during the pendency of this application. The petitioner cannot be reinstated even if the writ petition were to succeed, nor can the successful Union of the subsequent election be granted the benefit of the result of election. All that survives now for consideration is the issue of a fresh election. 8. Learned Counsel for the parties rightly submit that the Trade Unions Act or the regulations made thereunder do not contain any provision or procedure for conduct or holding of Trade Union Election under the statute. This is a matter entirely for the Unions concerned. Nonetheless given the acrimonious developments that have taken place at times, the Courts have given appropriate directions in this regard. 9. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bokaro Steel Workers Union (supra) was considering the validity of the directions given by the Labour Commissioner, Bihar, in view of the conflicting claims of rival Trade Unions, for holding of elections under the supervision of the Labour Commissioner. While the Court held that Sec. 28 of the Trade Unions Act did not empower the Registrar to do so, the Division Bench summing up its conclusions at paragraph 22 held as follows: "22. While the Court held that Sec. 28 of the Trade Unions Act did not empower the Registrar to do so, the Division Bench summing up its conclusions at paragraph 22 held 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." 10. The Division Bench however draw a distinction between the Registrar acting suo moto to hold the union elections and the Registrar holding and supervising elections in pursuance of the orders of a Court. Referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in AIR 1988 SC 2117 (North Eastern Railway Employees Union and Others vs. Illrd Additional District Judge and Others) relied upon by the petitioners therein, the Court held at paragraph 19 of the judgment as follows: "19. Referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in AIR 1988 SC 2117 (North Eastern Railway Employees Union and Others vs. Illrd Additional District Judge and Others) relied upon by the petitioners therein, the Court held at paragraph 19 of the judgment as follows: "19. At this stage, I would like to observe that in relying upon the above mentioned decisions Mr. Gupta overlooked the very significant fact that in those two cases directions to hold the unions election were issued not by the Registrar but by the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. It is another matter for the High Court or even a Civil Court in a fit case to issue direction for holding election of the office bearers of a Union and to designate the Registrar, Trade Unions or his nominee to supervise the election and to confer upon him such authority by virtue of the Courts order. It would be an altogether different matter for the Registrar who is a creature of the Act and must therefore act within the parameters of the Act to assume this authority and to issue such an order on his own and the two situations cannot be equated." 11. In the case of B.C. Sharma and Another (supra) the controversy again related to the holding of the election of Trade Union. Similar to the stand of the parties as noted in paragraph 11 of the judgment by the Supreme Court, even presently Counsel for the parties were unanimous in the need for holding fresh elections on updated electoral rolls. The Apex Court in paras 15 and 16 of the judgment again opined that the Registrar of Trade Union, being the statutory authority, was the only proper authority to be appointed lor the purpose of holding election. Even while their Lordships held that the Registrar, Trade Union, strictly speaking was not an authority to supervise the election under the provisions of the Trade Union Act, nonetheless their Lordship drew sustenance from the earlier pronouncements of the Supreme Court in North Eastern Railway Employees Union (supra) case. 12. In view of the authoritative pronouncements of the Apex Court and the Division Bench of this Court, the order at Annexure 1 dated 26.12.2001, issued suo moto by the Registrar, is not sustainable and is set aside to that extent. 12. In view of the authoritative pronouncements of the Apex Court and the Division Bench of this Court, the order at Annexure 1 dated 26.12.2001, issued suo moto by the Registrar, is not sustainable and is set aside to that extent. Nonetheless, this Court also notices the acrimony in the Union and the need to hold fresh and impartial elections of the Union. The Court therefore directs as hereinafter. 13. The Registrar, Trade Unions is hereby directed to enter into the arena immediately by proceeding for preparation of fresh electoral rolls, fixing dates for completion of other necessary formalities before holding of final casting of ballots and also fixing dates for declaration of the result in accordance with the bye-laws. Let the Registrar, Trade Unions, complete the whole exercise within a maximum period of six months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. 14. The writ application accordingly stands allowed to the extent indicated with directions.