JUDGMENT Hon’ble F.I. Rebello, C.J.—This is a special appeal by the Union - Roadways Mazdoor Sabha, Uttar Pradesh (appellant No. 1) and another, who claims to be the State President of the said Union. The respondent Nos. 5 and 6 herein also claim to be the office bearers of appellant No. 1. There, thus, appears to be a dispute in respect of who are the office bearers of the appellant No. 1. The appellants herein, who were the original petitioners, had approached the learned Single Judge to impugn the order dated 25.1.2010. By that order, the Registrar of the Trade Unions had directed the two rival factions, both claiming to be the office bearers of appellant No. 1, to hold fresh elections. It is the grievance of the appellants that the Registrar had no jurisdiction under the provisions of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and the Regulations framed thereunder in the State of Uttar Pradesh. 2. A few facts may be set out, which would be relevant for considering the issues which arise in the present appeal. The appellant No. 2 contends that he was the President duly elected at a meeting of members held on 29.12.2008. After holding of elections, the list of office bearers was communicated to the Registrar in Form ‘J’ on 30.12.2008. Another Form ‘J’ was submitted by respondent Nos. 5 and 6 claiming themselves to be the office bearers who had been elected at a meeting held at Lucknow on 17.11.2008. The Registrar, according to the appellants, considered the rival contentions and after giving an opportunity, being satisfied that the office bearers led by appellant No. 2 were the duly elected office bearers took the said Form ‘J’ on record. The office bearers led by appellant No. 1 thereafter held fresh elections on 23.9.2009 as the term of one year was expiring in the month of December, 2009 and forwarded the list of office bearers as required under Form ‘J’ and the same is pending before the competent Registrar till date. According to the appellant No. 2, the Registrar again proceeded to enquire into the matter at the instance of Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and acting under the pressure from Respondent No. 4, who is the Labour Minister in the Government of Uttar Pradesh, mala fide, reviewed the order and directed the holding of fresh elections. According to the appellant No. 2, the Registrar again proceeded to enquire into the matter at the instance of Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and acting under the pressure from Respondent No. 4, who is the Labour Minister in the Government of Uttar Pradesh, mala fide, reviewed the order and directed the holding of fresh elections. The appellants, in order to avoid legal problems, held elections on 22nd April, 2010. The office bearers led by respondent Nos. 5 and 6, it appears, also held elections on 23th April, 2010. Both the parties communicated the names of office bearers pursuant to elections so held to respondent No. 3 in Form ‘J’. The respondent No. 3 has, by his communication of 1.6.2010, cancelled the elections held by both the factions and has communicated the same to appellant No. 2 and respondent No. 6. 3. The appellants herein challenged the decision of the Registrar directing the holding of fresh elections, in a petition filed before this Court. That petition came up for hearing before a learned Judge of this Court who, by his order dated 20.5.2010, was pleased to dismiss the writ petition. The grievance of the appellants is that the learned Judge, after holding that the dispute in respect of who are the office bearers of the Union, cannot be considered by the Registrar but by the Civil Court, yet has affirmed the order of the Registrar directing the parties to hold fresh elections, which was beyond his jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge misdirected himself in law in upholding the order of the Registrar, when there was no power to recall the order, once he had accepted the list of office bearers submitted by appellant No. 2 in Form ‘J’. It is submitted that the finding by the learned Judge that the earlier order was passed arbitrarily, in violation of the guidelines dated 18th June, 1999 and without taking into consideration the other attending facts and circumstances, clearly discloses non-consideration of the facts on record and the provisions of the Act. It has been pointed out that the Registrar of the Trade Unions did not act on his own but based on the directions received from the Government, which can be seen from the order impugned in the writ petition. It has been pointed out that the Registrar of the Trade Unions did not act on his own but based on the directions received from the Government, which can be seen from the order impugned in the writ petition. Learned counsel has drawn our attention towards several judgments, which we shall consider during the course of our discussion. On the other hand, the contesting respondents pointed out that it cannot be disputed that under the provisions of the Act, the Registrar has no jurisdiction to decide as to who is the duly elected office bearers and that lies wholly within the province of the Civil Court. It is, however, pointed out that the present exercise is academic and futile as fresh elections have been held and in these circumstances no purpose would be served in hearing the appeal, which has now become infructuous. 4. Insofar as the maintainability of the appeal is concerned, as now brought on record on behalf of the appellants, the elections held in April, 2010 have been cancelled by respondent No. 3 as is evident by communication dated 1.6.2010. Insofar as the order impugned in the writ petition is concerned, after recalling his earlier order by which Form ‘J’ submitted by the appellant No. 2 was taken on record, the Registrar - respondent No. 2 has relegated the office bearers to the position before 29.12.2008. This later issue was not considered by the learned Single Judge. The appeal, therefore, is not infructuous. 5. We may now consider the provisions of the Act. The Statement of Objects and Reasons itself would show that the Act was enacted to provide for the registration of Trade Unions and in certain respects to define the law relating to registered Trade Unions. A consideration of the provisions of the Act would, thus, show that the Act is meant to register a Trade Union and on registration the Union would be a body corporate. On registering, the Union has been granted certain immunities from criminal actions under Section 17 of the Act and immunities from civil suits in certain cases under Section 18. A consideration of the provisions of the Act would, thus, show that the Act is meant to register a Trade Union and on registration the Union would be a body corporate. On registering, the Union has been granted certain immunities from criminal actions under Section 17 of the Act and immunities from civil suits in certain cases under Section 18. Any person aggrieved by non-registration of a Trade Union, has a right to file an appeal under Section 11 of the Act, either before the High Court where the head office of the Trade Union is situated within the limits of a Presidency town or before any other authority as provided in the said Section. The Registrar under the Act is a statutory authority, who has been conferred with certain powers including the power of registration. Apart from the power of registration, the Registrar under Section 28 of the Act is entitled, on an application being filed, amongst others, to examine the statement showing change of office bearers of a Union. Section 28 of the Act reads as under : “28. Returns.—(1) There shall be sent annually to the Registrar, on or before such date as may be prescribed, a general statement, audited in the prescribed manner, of all receipts and expenditure of every registered Trade Union during the year ending on the 31st day of December next preceding such prescribed date, and of the assets and liabilities of the Trade Union existing on such 31st day of December. The statement shall be prepared in such form and shall comprise such particulars as may be prescribed. (2) Together with the general statement there shall be sent to the Registrar a statement showing changes of office-bearers made by the Trade Union during the year to which the general statement refers together also with a copy of the rules of the Trade Union corrected upto the date of the despatch thereof to the Registrar. (3) A copy of every alteration made in the rules of a registered Trade Union shall be sent to the Registrar within fifteen days of the making of the alteration. (3) A copy of every alteration made in the rules of a registered Trade Union shall be sent to the Registrar within fifteen days of the making of the alteration. (4) For the purpose of examining the documents referred to in sub-sections (1), (2) and (3), the Registrar, or any officer authorised by him by general or special order, may at all reasonable times inspect the certificate of registration, account books, registers, and other documents, relating to a Trade Union, at its registered office or may require their production at such place as he may specify in this behalf, but no such place shall be at a distance of more than ten miles from the registered office of a Trade Union.” 6. A perusal, therefore, of Section 28 of the Act would only show that apart from examining the general statement of accounts audited in the prescribed manner, the Registrar is entitled to examine the statements showing change of office bearers in order to satisfy himself that the exercise has properly been done. It is also open to the Registrar to examine any other documents including account book registers. The State of Uttar Pradesh has framed Regulations, namely the U.P. Trade Unions Regulations (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Regulations’). Regulation 17-A of the Regulations, which is relevant for the purpose, reads as under : “17-A. Intimation regarding any change in the officers of a registered Trade Union shall be sent in duplicate in Form J to the Registrar within a week of such change taking place. The Registrar shall, within thirty days and under intimation to the Secretary of the Trade Union concerned, record the change in the Register of Trade Unions maintained under Section 8 of the Act unless he has reason to believe that the change has not been made in the manner provided in the registered rules of Trade Union.” A perusal of the above Regulation shows that the Registrar will take on record, within thirty days, of Form ‘J’ being submitted to him, the changes that have taken place, unless he has reason to believe that the change has not been made in the manner provided in the registered Rules of Trade Unions. The power, therefore, is to examine as to whether the change of office bearers, is in terms of the Rules or bye-laws of the Trade Union. 7. The power, therefore, is to examine as to whether the change of office bearers, is in terms of the Rules or bye-laws of the Trade Union. 7. The nature of enquiry to be conducted under the Regulation has now been settled by judgments of this Court, which we may gainfully advert to. In North-Eastern Railway Mazdoor Union, Rail Mazdoor Bhawan, Alinagar, Gorakhpur v. Registrar of Trade Unions, Kanpur and others, 1969 Lab IC 209 (All), a learned Single Judge of this Court on consideration of Regulation 17-A of the Regulations was pleased to hold that on rival lists of office bearers being submitted in Form ‘J’ to the Registrar, the Registrar has no power to hold a quasi judicial enquiry. There is no power conferred by the Act on the Registrar to adjudicate upon a dispute between rival groups of Trade Union. The Court further observed that though the Registrar is invested with the quasi judicial powers in registration of Trade Unions or cancellation of such registration, yet he has only an administrative power to record and enter in a register such changes in the office bearers and when there be a dispute as to who are the office bearers of the Trade Union, it is the Civil Court which would have jurisdiction. In IFFCO Phulpur Karmchari Sangh v. Registrar Trade Unions and others, 1991 (63) FLR 823 , a learned Division Bench of this Court had also the occasion to consider that issue. Reference was made to the judgment in North-Eastern Railway Mazdoor Union (supra) and the learned Bench went on to observe that the discretion vested in the Registrar under Regulation 17-A of the Regulations regarding effecting changes in the office bearers is not quasi judicial in nature. It is purely administrative. No party is entitled to lead evidence or to cross-examine witnesses. Further Section 28(3) read with Regulation 17-A does not contemplate holding of any elaborate enquiry as is required in the case of judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. The nature of the enquiry would be summary to satisfy himself that the return accompanying the changes of office-bearers is proper and in accordance with the Rules. The satisfaction has also only to be a prima facie satisfaction. The nature of the enquiry would be summary to satisfy himself that the return accompanying the changes of office-bearers is proper and in accordance with the Rules. The satisfaction has also only to be a prima facie satisfaction. Our attention was also invited to the judgment of another learned Single Judge of this Court in Hotel the Land Mak Employees Union, Kanpur v. Up-Registrar Trade Unions, Kanpur Region, Kanpur and others, (2002) 1 UPLBEC 430 . In the said judgment, the learned Judge held that when there be a dispute as to who are the office bearers, the Registrar would have no jurisdiction and it will be the competent Civil Court which will have the jurisdiction. 8. The law as thus settled is that the nature of the enquiry under Regulation 17-A is administrative read with Sections 28 (2) and 28 (4) of the Act. The issue as to whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction when there is a dispute as to who are the office bearers, has also been considered by the Patna High Court in the case of R.N. Singh and another v. State of Bihar and others, 1998 (79) FLR 829 and Bokaro Steel Workers Union and another v. State of Bihar and others, FLR 1995 (71) 257 wherein it has been held that where there is a dispute regarding rival factions of Trade Union claiming to the office bearers of the Union, it is the Civil Court which will have jurisdiction to decide the same. We have no reason to take a different view from the view taken by the learned Division Bench and also the learned Single Judges in the aforesaid cases. The Act does not contain any provision making final the list of office bearers. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is also not expressly or impliedly ousted, even if the names of one faction of office bearers are taken on record as the enquiry by the Registrar is limited to examine whether elections were held in terms of the Rules or bye-laws of the Trade Unions. The Registrar, therefore, does not and cannot enquire into the election process. The only limited power is to call for the records in terms of Section 28 (4) of the Act and considering Regulation 17-A to make a summary enquiry considering the record whether the rules and bye-laws have been followed. The Registrar, therefore, does not and cannot enquire into the election process. The only limited power is to call for the records in terms of Section 28 (4) of the Act and considering Regulation 17-A to make a summary enquiry considering the record whether the rules and bye-laws have been followed. The nature of the enquiry is administrative and summary. As noted in the judgment of this Court and of the Patna High Court, cited above, the jurisdiction to decide as to who are the office bearers is wholly within the domain of the Civil Court. 9. This being the position, the question for our consideration now is whether it was open to the learned Single Judge to have dismissed the petition against an order where after taking on record the Form ‘J’, the Registrar recalled the same and then directed the parties to hold elections and that too apparently considering a direction by the State Government in the form of a D.O. letter. 10. Considering the above background, three questions arise for consideration: 1. Has the State Government any power to issue directions to the Registrar in the matter of taking on record the list of office bearers? 2. Was it open to the Registrar to cancel and/or recall his decision to take on record the new list of bearers of the Union? 3. Was it open to the Registrar to direct the opposing camps to hold elections without considering the application under Form ‘J’ filed by both the parties which were pending before him? 11. Insofar as the first question is concerned, Section 3 of the Act confers power on the appropriate Government to appoint a person to be the Registrar of Trade Unions for each State. Further powers have also been conferred on the appropriate Government to appoint as many Additional and Deputy Registrars of Trade Unions as it thinks fit for the purpose of exercising and discharging, under the superintendence and direction of the Registrar, such powers and functions of the Registrar under the Act. The Registrar is defined under Section 2 (f) to mean a Registrar of Trade Unions appointed by the appropriate Government under Section 3, and includes any Additional or Deputy Registrar of Trade Unions. The power of the Registrar flows from the Act. The Registrar has power to entertain an application for registration of a Union. The Registrar is defined under Section 2 (f) to mean a Registrar of Trade Unions appointed by the appropriate Government under Section 3, and includes any Additional or Deputy Registrar of Trade Unions. The power of the Registrar flows from the Act. The Registrar has power to entertain an application for registration of a Union. This is an exclusive power conferred on the Registrar alone, unhindered and unfettered. No other authority can direct the Registrar in the matter of exercise of his powers either for registration of Trade Union or in the matter of cancellation under the Act. His order regarding non-registration or cancellation of a Union can only be the subject matter of an appeal in the manner provided under Section 11 of the Act. Apart from this power, there does not appear to be any other power except, in the matter of change of names, amalgamation of Union which also is to the satisfaction of the Registrar alone, unhindered and unfettered by any other authority. A perusal of the Regulation 17-A of the Regulations, which we have quoted above, would also clearly indicate that the power is of the Registrar alone. It is, therefore, clear that it will not be open to the State Government to issue any direction to the Registrar in the exercise of his power while considering the returns under Section 28 read with Regulation 17-A of the Regulations. The direction issued to the Registrar by the State Government has not been produced before us. However, the order impugned before the learned Single Judge itself notes the D.O. letter received by the Registrar. In our opinion, the Registrar misdirected himself in law in considering the said D.O. letter. We, once again reiterate that in exercise of powers under the provisions of the Act, Rules and Regulations framed thereunder, the Registrar alone has the jurisdiction to conduct the enquiry and he is not bound by any direction issued by the State Government or its authorities. The issue is answered accordingly. 12. The second question is whether it is open to the Registrar to recall and/or review his decision in taking the list of office bearers on record. In the instant case, on facts, the Registrar on satisfying himself did take on record the list of office bearers with appellant No. 2, as President of Appellant No. 1 though there was a rival claim by respondent Nos. In the instant case, on facts, the Registrar on satisfying himself did take on record the list of office bearers with appellant No. 2, as President of Appellant No. 1 though there was a rival claim by respondent Nos. 5 and 6. As noted earlier, the exercise of powers under Section 28 read with Regulation 17-A is purely administrative. The Registrar can conduct a summary enquiry to satisfy himself, before taking on record the names of office bearers, that there has been compliance with the requirements of the Act and the Rules. In the instant case, the Registrar exercised the powers conferred upon him and took on record the list of office bearers led by appellant No. 2. If the Registrar, in case of respondent Nos. 5 and 6, as has been held by the learned Judge, was satisfied that earlier order was passed arbitrarily in violation of guidelines dated 18th June, 1999 and without taking into consideration other attending facts and circumstances is accepted, it would defeat the very proposition, that once the names are taken on record, if there be any dispute, that dispute can only be resolved by the Civil Court. No doubt, in a case of fraud, as fraud vitiates every action - both administrative and judicial, it may be open to the Registrar to recall the order. Except for this limited purpose, the Registrar cannot interfere, otherwise, considering the scheme and the object of the Act. Even if such an exercise could be done if the fraud is patent and apparent from the record. Union must run its affairs under its office bearers. It is not possible to accept that the Registrar in all cases would be entitled to recall his order. The dispute as to whether fraud was played or illegality was committed in the election of office bearers and the dispute as to who are the office bearers can only be decided by a Civil Court on evidence being led before it. The dispute as to whether fraud was played or illegality was committed in the election of office bearers and the dispute as to who are the office bearers can only be decided by a Civil Court on evidence being led before it. In our opinion, therefore, the powers conferred on the Registrar and the limited scope of administrative enquiry under Section 28 (3) of the Act read with Regulation 17 (A) of the Regulations, leaves no manner of doubt that ordinarily, except in the case of patent fraud which must be apparent, the Registrar would have no jurisdiction to recall the communication made by him to a Union taking on record the list of office bearers. The learned Single Judge noted that there are some guidelines dated 18th June, 1999, but there is nothing on record to show that the Trade Union was registered with the Mahasangh in order to reconsider the matter. Even that exercise has not been done. On the facts of the present case, though there were rival claimants of office bearers, the Form ‘J’ of the office bearers led by appellant No. 1 was taken on record. Nothing has been brought on record to show that there was any apparent fraud. 13. Apart from that, the exercise of taking on record was done by the Sub-Registrar, Trade Unions, Azamgarh. The Registrar while interfering with the decision of the Sub-Registrar has acted as an Appellate Authority purportedly. Once power has been conferred upon the Additional Registrar and/or Deputy Registrar in terms of Section 3 (3) of the Act, they function as Registrar for that area. The powers then exercised is as the Registrar under Section 28 (3) or Regulations in the area within which the registered office of a Trade Union is situated. The sub-section is specific that such Additional or Deputy Registrar shall be deemed to be the Registrar of the Trade Union for the purpose of the Act. The Registrar, therefore, could not have acted as an Appellate or Revisional Authority. This aspect also, it appears, was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. As noted earlier, respondent No. 2, therefore, had no jurisdiction to interfere with the decision taken by respondent No. 3, who acted in his capacity as the Registrar for the area in question. This aspect also, it appears, was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. As noted earlier, respondent No. 2, therefore, had no jurisdiction to interfere with the decision taken by respondent No. 3, who acted in his capacity as the Registrar for the area in question. The learned Single Judge himself has noted that the Registrar has no power to adjudicate in case of dispute of rival claims of office bearers. After so considering, the learned Judge proceeded to hold that the substantive justice has been done and that no interference was called for under Article 226 of the Constitution. 14. Once the law, as settled, as noted by the learned Single Judge himself that the dispute as to who are the office bearers can only be resolved by the Civil Court, the learned Judge was in error in upholding the order of the Registrar directing both sets of office bearers to hold fresh election, which was without jurisdiction or authority of law. The Registrar under the Act or the rules has no power to direct the Trade Union to hold election. The only power in him is to register a Trade Union or cancel the registration of a Trade Union according to law. The answer to the third question would, therefore, be that there is no such power. The only power is to consider Form ‘J’ as per law. 15. Accordingly, the impugned order of the learned Single Judge is set aside. The order of the Registrar dated 25.1.2010 is also quashed. The order of respondent No. 3 taking on record the list of office bearers at the election held on 29.12.2008 led by appellant No. 2 is upheld. Respondent No. 3 is directed to proceed to examine the Form ‘J’ submitted by the respective groups, which are pending before him in accordance with law and, at any rate, not later than six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him. The appeal stands allowed in the aforementioned terms. ————