JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Shri Gajendra Pratap, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Yogesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for petitioners and learned Standing Counsel. 2. This writ petition has arisen from order dated 19.12.2015 passed by Deputy Registrar, Trade Union, Kanpur directing both parties to avail remedy before Civil Court since there is rival dispute in respect to Office Bearers, to run Trade Union. 3. Shri Gajendra Pratap contended that substantial right of parties, as has been set up, may be got settled by authority by instituting Civil Suit, but to the extent that Trade Union may function properly, Registrar/Deputy Registrar ought to have exercised administrative power by recognizing either of parties to function as Office Bearers to run Trade Union, hence functioning of Trade Union may not obstruct. He placed reliance on Iffco Phulpur Karmchari Sangh v. Registrar Trade Union and others, 1991 (63) FLR 823 . 4. In order to consider aforesaid submission, we may have a glance over relevant facts necessary to understand controversy, for effective adjudication of issue raised in this writ petition. 5. Bhartiya Khadya Nigam Shramik Sangthan, Kanpur is a Trade Union registered with Registrar, Trade Union, U.P., Kanpur and was registered under provisions of Trade Unions Act, 1926 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act 1926’) vide registration certificate dated 16.10.1996. Aforesaid Union has its members/workers of Food Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘FCI’). Union is to be administered through Working Committee/Managing Committee elected by members. Tenure of such elected body is two years as per constitution of Union. Clause 37 provides that earlier Working Committee/Office Bearers shall continue till the date of election of new committee. There is no provision in the constitution of Union to deal with a situation where election of Office Bearers/Working Committee is subjected to any dispute. There is nothing to meet a situation when such a dispute arises, as to how and in what manner Union will be administered, if by next date of election undisputed Office Bearers/Working Committee is not available. 6. It is said that in 2013 election was held on 28.4.2013 and information about new Office Bearers was conveyed to Registrar. New election ought to have been held between March-April, 2015 but earlier Working Committee did not take steps to hold the same. Consequently, executive meeting was convened on 12.7.2015 and it was resolved to hold election on 4.8.2015. 6. It is said that in 2013 election was held on 28.4.2013 and information about new Office Bearers was conveyed to Registrar. New election ought to have been held between March-April, 2015 but earlier Working Committee did not take steps to hold the same. Consequently, executive meeting was convened on 12.7.2015 and it was resolved to hold election on 4.8.2015. Election held on 9.8.2015 resulted in return of Paras Nath as President. In aforesaid election 1440 members participated out of 4880 and Sraddhanand Paswan was elected as Secretary. Record of elections and names of new Office Bearers was communicated to Registrar on 11.8.2015. 7. Respondent -5 set up a claim of different election held on 25.4.2015 returning respondent-5 as President and Tarni Kumar Paswan as Secretary. Petitioner - 3 disputed election set up by respondent-5 whereafter respondent-2 has passed impugned order dated 9.12.2015 holding that dispute between rival claimants of election of Trade Union cannot be adjudicated by Registrar/Deputy Registrar, since Act 1926 or bye laws/constitution of Trade Union confers no such power upon it and parties should have their dispute resolved through a competent Court of law. 8. Chapter 2 of Act 1926 talks of procedure of registration of Union and if there is any dispute with regard to registration, statutory appeal is provided under Section 11. 9. Learned counsel for petitioner could not show any provision under Act 1926, which may confer any power upon Registrar, to settle membership dispute or where rival claim of two Working Committees is set up, to recognize either of two or to adjudicate such a dispute. 10. Section 28 only requires Trade Union, registered with Registrar, to send statement of changes of Office Bearers made by Trade Union. No judicial or quasi judicial power or otherwise adjudicatory power has been conferred upon Registrar to enter into such dispute and decide the same in favour of one of the parties, if there is any dispute with regard to election of Office Bearers of Trade Union. 11. In some States, by provincial amendment, provisions have been made so that a dispute of Office Bearers of registered Union, if has arisen, can be settled. 12. Both the parties before this Court admit that in State of U.P. there is no such provincial amendment. 11. In some States, by provincial amendment, provisions have been made so that a dispute of Office Bearers of registered Union, if has arisen, can be settled. 12. Both the parties before this Court admit that in State of U.P. there is no such provincial amendment. Such issue earlier came up for consideration before a Division Bench of Patna High Court in Mukund Ram Tanti v. Registrar of Trade Unions and others, 1963 (1) LLJ 60. Therein, petitioner Mukund Ram Tanti claimed that election was held on 27.3.1960 in view of resolution passed by executive committee of Union in its meeting dated 23.3.1960 to hold annual election of Office Bearer and in the election, petitioner Mukund Ram Tanti was elected as President. The old Office Bearers disputed it and contended that no such election took place. Registrar considered the dispute and took a view that alleged meeting resolving to hold election was not convened according to provisions of rules of Union and it cannot be said that 27.3.1960 was the date fixed for election of new Office Bearers. Consequently, Registrar held that alleged election is not binding on old Office Bearers and they are entitled to continue till new general election is held in accordance with law. It is this order passed by Registrar, which was challenged before Patna High Court. It is evident from the judgment that counsel appearing for old Office Bearers conceded that Registrar had no power to declare election illegal or unconstitutional, but argument advanced was that petitioner Mukund Ram Tanti himself called for an inquiry with regard to correctness of election and submitted to jurisdiction of Registrar, hence he cannot be permitted to raise a dispute about authority and jurisdiction of Registrar in deciding correctness of election. This contention of old Office Bearers’ Counsel was upheld by the High Court. It said as under: “It is manifest, therefore, that the petitioner agreed to have an enquiry made by the trade Union authorities, and now that the result of the enquiry has been against him, the petitioner cannot challenge the jurisdiction of the Registrar of Trade Unions.” (emphasis added) 13. It said as under: “It is manifest, therefore, that the petitioner agreed to have an enquiry made by the trade Union authorities, and now that the result of the enquiry has been against him, the petitioner cannot challenge the jurisdiction of the Registrar of Trade Unions.” (emphasis added) 13. Having said so, Court after examining various provisions of Act 1926, as well as Section 28, took the view that purpose of submitting return including alterations/changes for Office Bearers is that Registrar shall maintain proper register containing names of Office Bearers, who are, for the time being, continuing to function as Office Bearers to manage affairs of Trade Union and this obligation on the part of Registrar would include within itself a duty on the part of Registrar to see that new Office Bearers were legally elected. Court said as under : “It is obvious, therefore, that, on being informed about the election of the new office-bearers, the Registrar is within his rights to ascertain whether they were legally elected so as to be recorded in the register maintained for the purpose and to be bound for compliance of the provisions of the Act. In other words, the Registrar has full jurisdiction to enquire about the legality of the new election for the purpose of maintaining a proper register showing the names of the office-bearers, who may be at the relevant time required to comply with the provisions of the Act or to be dealt with in accordance therewith. In this particular case the order of the Registrar clearly shows that the election of the new office-bearers was not accepted by him to be legal only for the purpose of maintenance of records in his office to facilitate the administration under the Act.” 14. Thereafter, this very question came up for consideration before a learned Single Judge of Calcutta High Court in ONGC Workmen’s Association v. State of West Bengal and others, 1988 LIC 555 : 1988 (2) LLJ 335 (Calcutta). Court held that Sections 8 and 28 of Act 1926 and other provisions clearly show that Registrar of Trade Union has no quasi judicial authority to hold any inquiry by allowing parties to examine witnesses and to allow parties to cross-examine such witnesses and decide the issue, who are real Office Bearers, who must be allowed to function. 15. Court held that Sections 8 and 28 of Act 1926 and other provisions clearly show that Registrar of Trade Union has no quasi judicial authority to hold any inquiry by allowing parties to examine witnesses and to allow parties to cross-examine such witnesses and decide the issue, who are real Office Bearers, who must be allowed to function. 15. A similar view was expressed by a Division Bench of Gauhati High Court in Ratan Kumar Dey and others v. Union of India and others, 1991 LAB IC 531; Madras High Court in R. Murugesan v. Union Territory of Pondicherry and others, (1976) II LLJ 435 and by Andhra Pradesh High Court in Rama Rao v. The Deputy Registrar of Trade Unions, 1973 (1) APLJ 457 . 16. This Court also had an occasion to consider this question in North Eastern Railway Mazdoor Union v. Registrar of Trade Union, 1969 LIC 209. This Court held, when rival groups in Trade Union had filed conflicting claim under Regulation 17 (A) of U.P. Trade Union Regulations, Registrar has no power to hold quasi judicial inquiry to find out as to which claim is correct and parties should be relegated to avail remedy before Civil Court. 17. Again, this matter came up before this Court in North Eastern Railway Mazdoor Union v. Registrar of Trade Union and others, (1975) II LLJ 396, Court reiterated that Registrar while exercising power under Section 28 (3) does not discharge any quasi judicial function. It discharges administrative function only. No parties are entitled to lead evidence or to cross-examine witnesses and no elaborate inquiry is permitted to be conducted by Registrar. However, Registrar is free to hold summary inquiry to satisfy himself for effecting changes, but where a detailed inquiry is needed, Registrar would not have any such power. Court relied on its earlier decision of 1969 in North Eastern Railway Mazdoor Union v. Registrar of Trade Union (supra). 18. A Division Bench of this Court also had an occasion to consider a similar dispute in Iffco Phulpur Karmchari Sangh (supra) and agreeing with earlier two decisions in North Eastern Railway Mazdoor Union (supra), Court said in paragraph 18 as under : “18. 18. A Division Bench of this Court also had an occasion to consider a similar dispute in Iffco Phulpur Karmchari Sangh (supra) and agreeing with earlier two decisions in North Eastern Railway Mazdoor Union (supra), Court said in paragraph 18 as under : “18. With respect we entirely agree with both the decisions cited above and hold that the Registrar (or the Dy Labour Commissioner exercising the power of the Registrar) under Regulation 17 (3) is not required to hold any elaborate enquiry akin to the process of adjudication in judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding. He is only required to make a summary enquiry 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 as held in the above two decisions.” (emphasis added) 19. Recently, this aspect has been considered in Roadways Mazdoor Sabha U.P. and others v. State of U.P. and another, 2010 (127) FLR 221 and a Division Bench of this Court has said as under : “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. 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. 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. 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 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.” (emphasis added) 20. Law, therefore, is well-settled that Section 28 read with Section 8 and Regulation 17-A do not confer any quasi judicial power upon Registrar to enter into a detailed inquiry when there is a rival claim set up with respect to election of Office Bearer/Working Committee of a Trade Union. However, Registrar in administrative capacity can make summary inquiry whether the form submitted by the parties show prima facie compliance of constitution of Trade Union with respect to holding of election, and whether persons claiming to be Office Bearers are not strangers and have been elected in compliance of procedure mentioned in constitution of Trade Union. However, where dispute raised by rival parties disputes very factum of election and require Registrar to hold a detailed inquiry by examining evidence etc., Registrar in such case is not competent to hold inquiry and remedy in such case is available to parties concerned by having their dispute settled in a Civil Court. 21. In present case, we find that both the parties claim that election were held on different dates. One party claim that election was held on 25.4.2015, while another claim that election was held on 19.8.2015. Notices were issued to both parties and, form-J and other documents submitted by them were also examined. In one election it was claimed that out of 20134 members 4091 members were present, while other group claimed that out of 4880 members 1440 members were present. Some members submitted their affidavits that they did not participate in the election dated 25.4.2015. Therefore, apparently, there was serious factual dispute raised on various aspects of the matter and it was not possible for Registrar to adjudicate the same without permitting parties to lead evidence and this was not permissible in limited summary enquiry, which Registrar could have done for registering alteration in respect to Office Bearers in his register. Hence it has rightly directed parties to have their matter settled in Civil Court. 22. Hence it has rightly directed parties to have their matter settled in Civil Court. 22. Shri Gajendra Pratap, learned Senior Counsel submitted that since term of earlier Committee of Management is over, it would have been appropriate on the part of Registrar, at least to make arrangement for management of Trade Union. Here is not a case where no elections were held or that a different body could have been nominated by Registrar for managing affairs of Trade Union. Since no such power is vested in Registrar, interim arrangement, if any is needed, parties can always seek such direction from Civil Court Registrar, in our view, has rightly refrained from passing any such order, else it would have been without jurisdiction. 23. We therefore find no legal or otherwise error in the impugned order passed by respondent -2. 24. The writ petition lacks merit. Dismiss.