ORDER : 1. Heard Sri Alok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pradeep Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3, Sri Jamal Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 25.10.2018 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Trade Union/Deputy Labour Commissioner, U.P. Allahabad (respondent no. 2) purportedly in exercise of the powers vested on that authority under Section 28(2) read with sub-section 3 of Trade Unions Act, 1926 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 3. Short submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioners in their capacity as the duly elected office bearers of the trade union had upon completion of the successful election process on 24.07.2018 filed the return on Form-J before the aforesaid authority. It is then submitted that the only obligation cast on the Deputy Registrar, Trade Union in view of the provisions of the Section 28(2) and (3) of the Act was to register the Form-J and the changes intimated on that form. He therefore submits that the Deputy Registrar, Trade Union had no jurisdiction to adjudicate any dispute in exercise of that power and, therefore, he could not have rejected the registration of Form-J submitted on the reasoning that certain votes received by the returning officer through electronic mail could not be accounted for. Further, it has been submitted that by thus sustaining the objection raised by the respondent no. 4, Deputy Registrar, Trade Union has committed a jurisdictional error in entering into a dispute and in further adjudicating the same. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the division bench judgment of this Court in the case of Chaudhary Raj Kumar Singh and Another vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2015 (5) ADJ 709 (paragraph no. 5). Second, alternatively, it has been submitted that, even if the votes termed as invalid for the reason of the same having been submitted through electronic mail are ignored, it would not alter the result of the election. Therefore, it has been submitted that the Deputy Registrar has failed to exercise its jurisdiction in not registering the change informed on Form-J, even if it were to be accepted that the votes submitted through electronic mail were invalid. Therefore, it has been submitted that the Deputy Registrar has failed to exercise its jurisdiction in not registering the change informed on Form-J, even if it were to be accepted that the votes submitted through electronic mail were invalid. Third, it has been submitted that in any case, if the election conducted by the petitioners were to be questioned or challenged, the remedy for the same would have remain with the respondent no. 4 to institute a civil suit and not to seek adjudication by the Deputy Registrar, Trade Union. Again, reliance has been placed on the division bench judgment in the case of Chaudhary Raj Kumar Singh and Another vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2015 (5) ADJ 709 (paragraph no. 7). 4. Sri Jamal Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 would submit that though there can be no dispute to the fact that the powers of the Deputy Registrar, Trade Union, under Section 28(A) of the Act, are non-adjudicatory, however, Regulation 17(A) of the U.P. Trade Union Regulations, 1927 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulations’) framed under Section 29 of the Act do confer on the Deputy Registrar the discretion to register or to not register intimation submitted on Form-J. Thus, it has been submitted that if the Deputy Registrar finds the intimation submitted on Form-J to be correct, he has no discretion but to register the same, however, if he has "reason to believe" that the change has not been made in the manner provided in the registered Rules of the Trade Unions, he may refuse to register such change. Coming to the facts of the case, he would submit that, at present, Deputy Registrar, Trade Union has not adjudicated the rights of the parties, but has only refused to register the intimation submitted on Form-J for the "reason to believe" recorded in the impugned communication being though under the bylaws, the voting was to be conducted through secret ballot procedure, certain votes had been received through electronic mail. Those cannot be termed to be secret ballot, since the identity of the voter and the choice made by him was always known and disclosed on face of the ballot paper itself. Therefore, it has been submitted that the impugned order is referable purely to Regulation 17(A) of the Regulations, and not to Section 28(A) of the Act. Those cannot be termed to be secret ballot, since the identity of the voter and the choice made by him was always known and disclosed on face of the ballot paper itself. Therefore, it has been submitted that the impugned order is referable purely to Regulation 17(A) of the Regulations, and not to Section 28(A) of the Act. Therefore, it has been submitted that the decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is wholly distinguishable on the issue of jurisdiction. Second, it has been submitted that if the votes received by the returning officer through electronic mail were to be ignored or treated to be invalid, it would alter the results as disclosed by the petitioners on Form-J. In this regard, it has been submitted that on the post of Vice President (2nd), one Nagendra Bahadur Singh has been declared successful, while Bhola Nath is the second runner up. Of the 91 votes polled in favour of Nagendra Bahadur Singh, 6 were received through electronic mail, while out of the 88 votes polled in favour of Bhola Nath, only 2 were received through electronic mail. Thus, if the votes polled through the electronic mail were to be ignored, it would be Bhola Nath, who would be declared winner and not Nagendra Bahadur Singh. Similar position exists on the post of Joint Secretary (1st). It is therefore submitted that in such a scenario, the Deputy Registrar has not committed any error in refusing to register the intimation submitted on Form-J for the reasons disclosed by him. 5. In such fact, it has also been submitted that there is no adjudication made by the Deputy Registrar, and if the petitioners are so aggrieved by the non-registration of Form-J for the reasons contained in the impugned intimation, it would be for them to file a suit as admittedly, no other remedy is available under the Act for adjudication of other disputes. 6. Sri Pradeep Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent no. 6. Sri Pradeep Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 has in fact placed on the division bench judgment of this Court in the case of Chaudhary Raj Kumar Singh and Another vs. State of U.P. and Others (supra) and submitted that the management had no role to play in the dispute, however, in his submission, unless the dispute is resolved in accordance with law, the management does have a stake, inasmuch as sometimes, the situation may lead to industrial unrest. 7. Having heard the submissions so advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it is seen that, in the first place, there is no dispute to the proposition that the Deputy Registrar, Trade Union, had no jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute either under Section 28(A) of the Act or under the Regulations. However, by the impugned communication, it cannot be said that the Deputy Registrar has adjudicated any dispute. He only appears to have formed an opinion that the intimation submitted on Form-J by the petitioners is not correct. The opinion further appears to be based on a "reason to believe" that the ballot paper received through electronic mail would not constitute a valid vote. Consequence of ignoring those votes, as has been noted above, would render the intimation submitted on Form-J to be incorrect. Therefore, keeping in mind the discretion given to the Deputy Registrar under Regulation 17(A) of the Regulations, it stands established that the said authority has refused to register the intimation submitted on Form-J. Any observations made in that intimation cannot be read to be an adjudication of any existing dispute, inasmuch as plainly, the said authority had not endeavoured to decide the same. He had only observed that the acceptance of votes through electronic mail violates the secret ballot. 8. Without entering the reasoning offered by the Deputy Registrar, still, it cannot be said that the intimation did not disclose the "reason to believe" with the authority to refuse the registration of the Form-J. That being the position, there does not appear any defect in the impugned communication on account of jurisdiction. 9. 8. Without entering the reasoning offered by the Deputy Registrar, still, it cannot be said that the intimation did not disclose the "reason to believe" with the authority to refuse the registration of the Form-J. That being the position, there does not appear any defect in the impugned communication on account of jurisdiction. 9. As to the fact of ignoring the votes submitted through electronic mail, though learned counsel for the petitioner has not made any concession in that regard, however, suffice it to say that, if that argument were to be accepted then the election of some of the office bearers may not be affected, however, the election to the post of Vice President (2nd) and Joint Secretary (1st) would stand dislodged. That being the position of fact, the intimation submitted on Form-J has rightly been refused, even if the alternative submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner were to be accepted. 10. As to the third submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, if the respondent no. 4 was objecting to the intimation submitted on Form-J, it was for that respondent to institute a suit, such argument cannot be accepted. Once it was found that the Deputy Registrar has declined to register the intimation submitted on Form-J, it would be for the petitioners to either accept that declaration or to carry the matter in suit, that being the only remedy. It would have been another case if the statutory authority had transgressed its jurisdiction and sought to adjudicate the dispute himself. That having not been done, it would remain to the petitioners to approach the appropriate court, in accordance with law. 11. The present writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.