JUDGMENT : KALYAN RAI SURANA, J. 1. Heard Mr. M.H. Choudhury, learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. B. Deuri, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for State respondents. 2. The grievance of the petitioners in the present writ petition is that the previous executive body of petitioner No. 1, namely, Pub-Mangaldoi Besarkari Paribahan Sromik Sangtha had misappropriated a huge amount of money of the said Labour Union and did not hold the General Body meeting years together. Even after issuance of notice by the Labour Inspector, Darrang, Mangaldoi for attaining his office on 1.8.2014, the members of the previous executive body did not appear before the said authorities. Therefore, the General members of the petitioner No. 1, Labour Union had convened a meeting on 31.8.2014 and after forming a new committee, the Labour Commissioner, Assam was apprised of such new committee. However, President and Secretary of the erstwhile executive body had started troubling the petitioners and its members and have not permitted the newly formed executive body to function. Hence, by filing this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Darrang, Mangaldoi to give full protection to the petitioners in discharging the duty of the said Labour Union. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as the petitioner No. 1, Labour Union is duly registered under the Trade Union Act, the State authorities owe a duty to the petitioners to permit the lawfully constituted executive body to function. It is submitted that the previous executive body has taken away all the requisite registers, account books and the Constitution of the said Labour Union and thereby disturbing the functioning of the present executive body. 4. Heard the learned Govt. Advocate appearing for State respondents in the matter. 5. It appears to this Court that there is a dispute between two rival factions for managing the affairs of the petitioner No. 1, Labour Union. Under the similar circumstance, the Hon'ble High Court of Patna in the case of Bokara Steel Workers' Union and another v. State of Bihar and others, 1995 (71) FLR 257 (Pat) has held, inter-atia that in the absence of any provision in that Trade Union Act, any dispute of this, kind can only be resolved by means of a suit filed before a Civil Court. 6. 6. This Court is in respectfully agreement with the directions contained in the aforesaid judgment. Accordingly, by following the ratio laid down in the case of Steel Workers' Union (supra) this Court is inclined to observe as follows: (i) In a dispute between two rival factions claiming to be the office bearers of a union, it is open to the Registrar under the Trade Union Act to hold an enquiry for the purpose of maintaining and updating 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 person 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 of the employer to recognize 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 Union has no authority or power to direct the holding of election of the bearers of a union under his own supervision or under the supervision of his nominee. (v) In the absence of any provision in that Trade Union Act, any dispute of this kind can only be resolved by means of a suit filed before a Civil Court. 7. Accordingly, in view of the discussion above, this writ petition stands closed in terms of the direction contained hereinbefore. 8. There shall be no order as to cost.