JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.—Heard Sri Bhupendra Nath Singh, for the petitioners and Sri Yogesh Kumar Sinha alongwith Sri Rahul Jain, for the contesting respondent-4. 2. Writ- C No. 1120 of 2018 has been filed against the order of Deputy Registrar, Trade Union/Deputy Labour Commissioner, dated 4.12.2017, registering election dated 15.9.2017 of the office bearers of Executive Body of Indian Oil Corporation Pipe-Lines Workers Union, Allahabad, set up by Raj Kishore Singh (respondent-4), under U.P. Trade Union Regulation, 1927, holding it as legal and rejecting election set up by Chandra Mauli Singh (petitioner-2) dated 4.10.2017. 3. Writ- C No. 1130 of 2018 has been filed against the order of Deputy Registrar, Trade Union/Deputy Labour Commissioner, dated 31.8.2017, registering proposed amendments of the bye-laws of Indian Oil Corporation Pipe-Lines Workers Union, Allahabad. 4. Indian Oil Corporation Pipe-Lines Workers Union, Peepal Gaon, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as “the Union”) is a ‘workmen union’, registered under Trade Unions Act, 1926, having its Registration No. 4429 dated 16.11.1976. Area of working of the Union is Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Jharkhand, Orissa and Chhattisgarh (i.e. Khunti, Bhuwneshwar, Baleshwar, Jatni, Sambhalpur, Jhansuguda, Korba, Raipur, Paradeep, Lucknow, Kanpur, Allahabad, Mughal Sarai, Patna, Jasideeh, Barauni, the places where pipe-lines work of Indian Oil Corporation exist). Its registered office is at Lajpat Bhawan, IOC Pipe-Lines, Peepal Gaon, Allahabad (U.P.) and head office is at Chandra Shekhar Bhawan, Barauni Refinery Township, Begusarai (Bihar). The Union has its registered bye-laws. According to bye-laws, term of office bearers is two years. Last admitted election of the office bearers was held on 4/5.10.2015, in which Chandra Mauli Singh (petitioner-2) was elected as the President, Raj Kishore Singh (respondent-4) as the Co-President, Pramod Kumar as the General Secretary and Manjesh Kumar Jha as the Treasurer. This election was duly registered by Deputy Registrar on 11.12.2015, under Regulation 17-A of U.P. Trade Union Regulations, 1927, read with Section 22 and 28 (3) of Trade Unions Act, 1926. 5. According to the petitioners, Pramod Kumar, General Secretary of the Union called for a meeting of the general body through his letter dated 20.5.2017, fixing 28.5.2017 at 10.00, at Chandra Shekhar Bhawan, Barauni Refinery Township, Begusarai (Bihar) for considering inter alia among others, fixing dates of 34th biennial conference for election of the office bearers. 5. According to the petitioners, Pramod Kumar, General Secretary of the Union called for a meeting of the general body through his letter dated 20.5.2017, fixing 28.5.2017 at 10.00, at Chandra Shekhar Bhawan, Barauni Refinery Township, Begusarai (Bihar) for considering inter alia among others, fixing dates of 34th biennial conference for election of the office bearers. The meeting of general body, held on 28.5.2017, was attended by 128 members (in writ petition wrongly noted as 55 members) out of 159 members, in which dates of biennial conference for election, at various places of working of the Union, starting from 4.9.2017 and ending on 9.10.2017, were fixed. Information of election schedule was given to Executive Directors, Eastern Region Pipe-Lines Calcutta and Southern-Eastern Region Pipe-Lines Calcutta, Chairman, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Director, Human Resources Refinery Marketing Pipe-lines and Deputy Registrar, Allahabad, through letters dated 18.7.2017, by the General Secretary of the Union. 6. The petitioners further stated that in meeting of the general body of the Union, held on 28.5.2017, President was authorized to take necessary action against Raj Kishore Singh, Mukesh Kumar and Alok Kumar, who were involved in ante-union activities. President removed Raj Kishore Singh, Mukesh Kumar and Alok Kumar, for their involvement in ante-union activities and informed them through his letter dated 4.9.2017, giving them an opportunity to file an appeal before general body, in its meeting dated 9.10.2017. President, by letter dated 4.9.2017, requested the management/employer not to deduct their membership fee of the Union from their salary. Raj Kishore Singh, Mukesh Kumar and Alok Kumar did not file any appeal before general body in its meeting dated 9.10.2017 as such they were no more members of the Union. 7. According to the petitioners, biennial conferences of general body were held as per schedule fixed in the meeting dated 28.5.2017 at different places of the working of the Union. Last conference of the members of general body was held on 9.10.2017 at Barauni, in which 119 members out of 159 members participated, in which Chandra Mauli Singh, Pramod Kumar and Shankar Chaudhary were elected as President, General Secretary and Treasurer alongwith 41 other office bearers and members of Executive body. Names of elected office bearers were submitted in Form-J alongwith election proceeding for registration to Deputy Registrar, by letter dated 16.10.2017. 8. Names of elected office bearers were submitted in Form-J alongwith election proceeding for registration to Deputy Registrar, by letter dated 16.10.2017. 8. According to respondent-4, General Secretary of the Union called for a meeting of general body through his letter dated 8.5.2017, fixing 28.5.2017 at 10.00 a.m., at Lajpat Bhawan, IOC Pipe-Lines, Peepal Gaon, Allahabad, which was held on 28.5.2017 and in which dates of biennial conference for election, at various places of working of the Union, starting from 17.8.2017 and ending on 15.9.2017, at Allahabad, were fixed. Biennial conferences of general body were held as per schedule fixed in the meeting dated 28.5.2017. The elected members of Executive Body held their meeting on 15.9.2017 at Allahabad, in which Raj Kishore Singh, P.K. Paswan and Jitendra Kumar were elected as the President, General Secretary and Treasurer alongwith 43 other office bearers and members of Executive Body. Names of elected office bearers were submitted in Form-J alongwith election proceeding for registration to Deputy Registrar on 18.9.2017. 9. On receiving two rival elections, Deputy Registrar called upon the parties for examination/verification of their papers, fixing 28.11.2017. Raj Kishore Singh submitted the papers relating to the election and also filed affidavits of 90 members of the general body, in support of election dated 15.9.2017 and other papers i.e. fee deposit receipts etc. He stated that as the members used to take leave on Dashara, Dipawali and Chhat puja as such election schedule was preponed by the general body in its meeting dated 28.5.2017. Elections of the members of general body of various sub-stations were held as per schedule. Elected members of general body elected the office bearers of the Executive Body on 15.9.2017. The General Secretaries of All India Trade Union Congress and All India Petrol Workers Federation also through their letters dated 10.10.2017 supported election as setup by Raj Kishore Singh. Deputy Registrar, after examining the papers relating to elections of the parties, by impugned order dated 4.12.2017, held that Raj Kishore Singh submitted receipts relating to membership fee, affidavits of 90 members, who had supported the election dated 15.9.2017 as such election set up by Raj Kishore Singh was genuine and election dated 9.10.2017 set up by Chandra Mauli Singh, was a fake election and he registered election dated 15.9.2017, under Regulation 17-A. Hence these writ petitions have been filed. 10. 10. The counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection, relating to maintainability of writ petitions. He submitted that although to form an association is a fundamental right of a citizen but right to elect or to be elected is only a statutory right. As such right to dispute the election can be exercised according to the provisions of relevant statute. In present case, election of the office bearers of a registered trade union is in dispute. A trade union requires registration under Trade Union Act, 1926 and its renewal is registered under Regulation 17-A U.P. Trade Unions Regulations, 1927. According to the registered bye-laws of the Union, term of the office bearers of Executive Body, is two years. Regulation-17-A requires to intimate biennial election to Registrar in Form-J, for its registration. Registrar, while registering the elected office bearers can hold a summary inquiry to examine its validity. Under the Act and Regulation, Registrar is exercising administrative powers. If Registrar, after inquiry, has registered an office bearers, then the aggrieved person can challenge it in a suit. He relied upon judgments of this Court in Iffco Phulpur Karmchari Sangh v. Registrar Trade Unions, 1991 (2) UPLBEC 1345 (DB), Writ-C No. 10794 of 2015 Chaudhary Raj Kumar Singh v. State of U.P., 2015(2) ADJ 785 , Shiv Prasad Sharma v. Union of India, 2015(8) ADJ 682 (DB) and Bhartiya Khadya Nigam Shramik Sangthan v. Registrar Trade Union, 2016(11) ADJ 519 (DB), in which writ petition challenging the order of Deputy Registrar, recognizing election of one of the rival claimant was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy of suit. He further submitted that otherwise also, disputed questions of facts require for examination of documentary and oral evidence for its adjudication, which is not possible for this Court in writ jurisdiction. In present case, highly disputed questions of fact are involved as such writ petition is not liable to be entertained as held by Full Bench of this Court in Anil Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P., 2016 (2) AWC 1504 (FB). 11. In present case, highly disputed questions of fact are involved as such writ petition is not liable to be entertained as held by Full Bench of this Court in Anil Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P., 2016 (2) AWC 1504 (FB). 11. In reply to the aforesaid arguments, the counsel for the petitioners relied upon judgments of this Court in Kamla Kant Agrawal v. State of U.P., 2008(4) ESC 2531 , in which it has been held that if a person has been excluded from electoral colleges then he has been deprived to form association and his right under Article 19 (1) (c) of the Constitution has been violated. Writ petition to enforce fundamental right is maintainable. Laxman Singh v. State of U.P., 2014(9) ADJ 242 , in which relying upon judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Committee of Management, Arya Kanya Pathshala Inter College v. State of U.P., 2011(2) ADJ 65 (DB), it has been held that when right of an individual is affected in an election of committee of management then he can challenge it in writ petition. He submitted that Deputy Registrar has not given proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as such impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. He relied upon judgment of Supreme Court in Automotive Tyre Manufacturers Association v. The Designated Authority, (2011) 2 SCC 258 , in which it has been held unless statute provides, rules of natural justice cannot be violated. 12. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties. Supreme Court in Jyoti Basu v. Debi Ghosal, (1982) 1 SCC 691 , has held that right to elect, fundamental though it is to democracy, is, anomalously enough, neither a fundamental right nor a common law right. It is pure and simple, a statutory right. So is the right to be elected. So is the right to dispute an election. Outside of statute, there is no right to elect, no right to be elected and no right to dispute an election. Statutory creations they are, and therefore, subject to statutory limitation. An election petition is not an action at common law, nor in equity. So is the right to be elected. So is the right to dispute an election. Outside of statute, there is no right to elect, no right to be elected and no right to dispute an election. Statutory creations they are, and therefore, subject to statutory limitation. An election petition is not an action at common law, nor in equity. In Gujarat University v. N.U. Rajguru, AIR 1988 SC 66 , has held that it is well-settled that where a statute provides for election to an office, or an authority or institution and if it further provides a machinery or forum for determination of dispute arising out of election, the aggrieved person should pursue his remedy before the forum provided by the statute. While considering an election dispute it must be kept in mind that the right to vote, contest or dispute election is neither a fundamental nor a common law right, instead it is a statutory right regulated by the statutory provisions. It is not permissible to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution bypassing the machinery designated by the Act for determination of the election dispute. Ordinarily the remedy provided by the statute must be followed before the authority designated therein. But there may be cases where exceptional or extraordinary circumstances may exist to justify bypassing the alternative remedies. 13. Trade Unions Act, 1926 and U.P. Trade Unions Regulations, 1927, do not provide any judicial or quasi-judicial forum for adjudication of dispute relating to election of office bearers of the Union. Thus there is no alternative statutory remedy. At the most, the aggrieved person can file a suit as held in Bhartiya Khadya Nigam Shramik Sangthan v. Registrar Trade Union, 2016(11) ADJ 519 (DB) and other case relied upon by the respondent. The question, therefore, arises as to whether, a civil suit in U.P. is an efficacious remedy, keeping in mind that term of the office bearers is two years and in election matters, Civil Court is debarred from granting interim injunction. In U.P. final decision of a suit has become impossible within two years. The suit is not an efficacious remedy in present case. Recognizing the importance of trade unions, Supreme Court in Food Corporation of India Staff Union v. Food Corporation of India, 1995 (1) SCR 96, held that collective bargaining is the principal raison d’etre of the trade unions. In U.P. final decision of a suit has become impossible within two years. The suit is not an efficacious remedy in present case. Recognizing the importance of trade unions, Supreme Court in Food Corporation of India Staff Union v. Food Corporation of India, 1995 (1) SCR 96, held that collective bargaining is the principal raison d’etre of the trade unions. However, to see that the trade union, which takes up the matter concerning service conditions of the workmen truly represents the workmen employed in the establishment, the trade union is first required to get itself registered under the provisions of Trade Unions Act, 1926. This gives a stamp of due formation of the trade union and assures the mind of the employer that the trade union is an authenticated body, the names and occupation of whose office bearers also become known. 14. Supreme Court in Real Estate Agencies v. State of Goa, (2012) 12 SCC 170 , held that there is no universal rule or principle of law which debars the writ Court from entertaining adjudications involving disputed questions of fact. In fact, in the realm of legal theory, no question or issue would be beyond the adjudicatory jurisdiction under Article 226, even if such adjudication would require taking of oral evidence. However, as a matter of prudence, the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, normally would not entertain a dispute which would require it to adjudicate the contested questions and conflicting claims of the parties to determine the correct facts for due application of the law. High Court is not deprived of its jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Article 226 merely because in considering the petitioner’s right to relief questions of fact may fall to be determined. In a petition under Article 226 the High Court has jurisdiction to try issues both of fact and law. Exercise of the jurisdiction is, it is true, discretionary, but the discretion must be exercised on sound judicial principles. Merely because a question of fact is raised, the High Court will not be justified in requiring the party to seek relief by the somewhat lengthy, dilatory and expensive process by a civil suit against a public body. Exercise of the jurisdiction is, it is true, discretionary, but the discretion must be exercised on sound judicial principles. Merely because a question of fact is raised, the High Court will not be justified in requiring the party to seek relief by the somewhat lengthy, dilatory and expensive process by a civil suit against a public body. This clearly shows that in an appropriate case, writ Court has jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition involving disputed questions of fact and there is no absolute bar for entertaining a writ petition even if the same arises out of a contractual obligation and/or involves some disputed questions of fact. 15. Full Bench of this Court in Shiv Ram v. State of U.P. and others, 2016(9) ADJ 366 , has held that in view of Proviso to Section 229-D of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, the suit before Revenue Court may not be efficacious alternative remedy in a given case. The suit in Civil Court may not be maintainable in every case in view of Section 331 of the Act. In the cases, where the Statutory Authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question, or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted to invoke the provisions, which are repealed, or when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice, writ petition can be entertained. In view of the aforesaid discussions, preliminary objection raised by the respondent is not liable to be accepted as in the present case, there is no statutory alternative remedy to assail the impugned order of Deputy Registrar and the remedy of the civil suit is not an efficacious remedy. 16. The petitioners have filed copy of resolution dated 28.5.2017 as Annexure-4 to writ petition. In resolution (on page-61 of writ petition), date of biennial conference at Barauni was fixed as 8.10.2017, while in alleged information given to the authorities relating election schedule, the date of biennial conference at Barauni was shown as 9.10.2017 (Annexure-5) to writ petition. The petitioners also claimed that election meeting was held on 9.10.2017 at Barauni. In resolution (on page-61 of writ petition), date of biennial conference at Barauni was fixed as 8.10.2017, while in alleged information given to the authorities relating election schedule, the date of biennial conference at Barauni was shown as 9.10.2017 (Annexure-5) to writ petition. The petitioners also claimed that election meeting was held on 9.10.2017 at Barauni. The petitioners could not give any explanation of this discrepancy, due to which the election set up by the petitioners is not free from doubt, inasmuch as in the meeting of general body a different date was fixed while election was held on a different date. 34th biennial conference at Barauni was attended by 62 members of the Union out of total 159 members, which shows that majority of the members were misguided by holding meeting on a changed date. 17. Clause-35 of the bye-laws requires for election of 106 members for Executive Body, out of which at least 70% members should the members of the general body. Clause-36 provides that number of members of Executive Body from a particular sub-station should be in ratio of total members of general body i.e. permanent employees. Election of members of Executive Body should be through secret ballot papers, which necessarily requires that Election Officer should first decide number of members of Executive Body to be elected from various sub-stations. Thereafter some date for filing nomination of the contesting candidates be fixed and thereafter some date for election be fixed. So far as biennial conferences at different places of sub-station is concerned in these meeting only members of general body according to the quota of various places, depending upon strength of workmen have to be elected. From the papers of the petitioners, it does appear that the petitioners have conducted any election through secret ballet papers of the members of Executive Body at various sub-stations. 18. Clause-39 of the bye-laws requires that the office bearers of Executive Body should be elected by members of Executive Body in its first meeting. Clause-38 prescribed minimum numbers of the office bearers. A perusal of Resolution dated 9.10.2017 (Annexure-9) to the writ petition shows that it was neither meeting of the members of Barauni sub-station for election of members of Executive Body nor it was a meeting of elected members of Executive Body. Clause-38 prescribed minimum numbers of the office bearers. A perusal of Resolution dated 9.10.2017 (Annexure-9) to the writ petition shows that it was neither meeting of the members of Barauni sub-station for election of members of Executive Body nor it was a meeting of elected members of Executive Body. It was 34th biennial conference at Barauni on 9.10.2017, which was attended by 62 members of the Union and not by the members of Barauni sub-station alone. Election of the office bearers of Executive Body of the Union in this meeting was not in accordance with the provisions of bye-laws. Deputy Registrar has not committed any illegality in not accepting the election dated 9.10.2017 setup by Chandra Mauli Singh (petitioner-2). 19. So far as the election set up by Raj Kishore Singh is concerned, according to Raj Kishore Singh, Pramod Kumar, the General Secretary of the Union called for a meeting of the general body through his letter dated 8.5.2017, fixing 28.5.2017 at 11.00 a.m. (Annexure-CA-2). Authenticity of this letter has been denied by the petitioners. Apart from it, a perusal of this letter shows that meeting dated 28.5.2017 at 11.00 a.m. was fixed at the principal office of the Union. Principal office in the letter head of this letter itself has been mentioned as “Chandra Shekhar Bhawan, Barauni Refinery, Township Begusarai (Bihar”). While according to Raj Kishore Singh meeting was held on 28.5.2017 at Lajpat Bhawan, IOC Pipe-Lines, Peepal Gaon, Allahabad, which was not the principal office rather registered office. This meeting was attended by 50 members out of 159 total members of the Union. In the meeting held on 28.5.2017, dates of biennial conference, at various places, starting from 17.8.2017 and ending on 15.9.2017, at Allahabad, were fixed, although under clause-37, the dates ought to have been fixed in October & November. Reasons as mentioned in the Counter-affidavit for preponing the dates have not been given in the resolution. 34th biennial meetings of general body as held on 15.9.2017 at Allahabad, was attended by 20 regular workmen and 19 contract workmen in which Raj Kishore Singh, P.K. Paswan and Jitendra Kumar were elected as the President, General Secretary and Treasurer alongwith 43 other office bearers and members of Executive Body. Thus 39 members have elected 43 office bearers. In this meeting also provisions of clauses-35, 36, 38 and 39 of the bye-laws were totally overlooked. Thus 39 members have elected 43 office bearers. In this meeting also provisions of clauses-35, 36, 38 and 39 of the bye-laws were totally overlooked. The procedure of election through secret ballot paper has not been adopted at any stage of the election. This election was also illegal and has been wrongly recognized by Deputy Registrar. 20. So far as filing of affidavits of 90 members of the general body before Deputy Registrar is concerned, if the election has not been held according to the procedure as prescribed by the bye-laws then it cannot be substituted by an affidavit of the members. Similarly the observation of Deputy Registrar that Raj Kishore Singh has submitted receipts relating to collection of membership fee is concerned membership fee is directly deducted by the employer from the salary of workmen and is remitted to the Union. There was no question of issuing any receipt by Raj Kishore Singh to the members. 21. So far as removal of Raj Kishore Singh, Mukesh Kumar and Alok Kumar, by the President as informed to them through letter dated 4.9.2017, is concerned, clause-9 of the bye-laws provides that Executive Body by its 3/4th majority can remove any member on the grounds as mentioned in this clause after giving 15 days prior notice to him. In the present case, there is nothing on record to show that 15 days prior show-cause notices were given to Raj Kishore Singh, Mukesh Kumar and Alok Kumar or Executive Body or the general body by its 3/4th majority had removed them. A perusal of the Resolution dated 28.5.2017, by which it is alleged that the general body had authorized the President to take action against Raj Kishore Singh, Mukesh Kumar and Alok Kumar, shows that there was no agenda in this respect. After entire resolution, the sentence “ Sri Raj Kishore Singh-Co-President, Mukesh Kumar-Vice President and Alok Kumar Sinha-Secretary ke vishay me Adhyaksh mahoday ko adhikrit kiya gaya ki is sambandh me uchit karywahi kare”, has been added/adjusted by fabrication, in small letters in left margin of the paper (page-65 of the writ petition). Their removal was not valid. 22. So far as amendment in bye-laws is concerned, clause-59 provides that amendment in bye-laws can be made by 3/4th majority in the meeting of general body provided that it was duly discussed by Executive Body in it meeting with prior agenda. Their removal was not valid. 22. So far as amendment in bye-laws is concerned, clause-59 provides that amendment in bye-laws can be made by 3/4th majority in the meeting of general body provided that it was duly discussed by Executive Body in it meeting with prior agenda. The respondents have stated that Executive Body in its meeting dated 26.9.2016, by an unanimous majority authorized Co-President to take step for amendment in the bye-laws. Raj Kishore Singh-Co-President prepared draft of the amendment and circulated to all the sub-units. All the sub-units have accepted the proposed amendment. In the meetings of Executive Body held on 14.10.2016 at Paradeeh, 22.10.2016 at Kanpur, 24.10.2016 at Allahabad and 26.10.2016 at Mughal Sarai, in the Chairmanship of the President Chandra Mauli Singh and it was passed by a unanimous majority after considering the opinion of sub-units. Thereafter, proposed amendments were submitted for its registration, which was registered on 31.8.2017. Thus proposed amendment was never put for discussion in the meeting of general body. There is nothing on record to show that proposed amendments were circulated to the members of general body and there opinion was obtained. Proposed amendments were also not done according to the provisions of bye-laws as such these are illegal. 23. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the writ petitions succeed and are allowed. The orders of Deputy Registrar Trade Union/Deputy Labour Commissioner, dated 31.8.2017, registering proposed amendments and order dated 4.12.2017, registering election dated 15.9.2017 of the office bearers of Executive Body of Indian Oil Corporation Pipe-Lines Workers Union, Allahabad, as set up by Raj Kishore Singh are set aside. Deputy Registrar (respondent-3) is directed to decide the number of the members of Executive Body to be elected from different sub-stations. Thereafter, he will nominate election officer/officers for election of the members of Executive Body at the different sub-stations, who shall conduct election of the members of Executive Body as per schedule fixed by Deputy Registrar, for nomination and election through secret ballot. Thereafter he shall conduct election of office bearers of the Executive Body fixing date, time and place for nomination and election through secret ballot, according to the provisions of Clauses-35, 36, 38 and 39 of the bye-laws. Entire exercise shall be completed within three months. The office bearers elected in this election shall be registered under Regulation 17-A, for remaining period of two years, of the election of 2017.