JUDGMENT Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J. Heard Sri. Alok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Bushra Maryam, learned counsel for respondent no. 3. 2. This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed assailing the order/letter dated 07.02.2023 passed/issued by respondent no. 2, Additional Registrar, Trade Union, Uttar Pradesh Kanpur. 3. The facts leading to filing of present petition, are that employees of Small Arms Factory, Kanpur had registered union in the name of "Small Arms Factory Employees Union, Kanpur". The general body of the Union has 665 members. The last of the election was held in the year 2022 and the new office bearers were elected to the said Union. The present petitioner is ex-General Secretary of the Union who has filed the petition alleging certain misrepresentation and concealment of facts while submitting Form-J on 28.08.2022. According to petitioner, the form was to be signed by outgoing General Secretary but it was signed by Joint Secretary and thus certain anomalies have crept in and said Form-J could not be registered with the Registrar. 4. Ventilating his grievance, petitioner had approached the Registrar through a representation on 30.12.2022, on which the Registrar, Trade Union, Uttar Pradesh, Kanpur on 10.01.2023 had required Additional Registrar, Trade Union to look into the matter and do the needful. Pursuant to directions of Registrar, the Additional Registrar proceeded with the matter and on 07.02.2023 had directed the petitioner to approach Civil Court in case he was not satisfied with the registration of Form-J. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that State of Uttar Pradesh by an amendment in the Trade Union Act, 1926 has inserted Section 8-A on 22.03.2022 providing for declaring such documents as null and void, and the Registrar having power to cancel the document in case registration has been obtained by misrepresentation of fact or concealment of fact. 6. He has relied upon the proviso to Section 8(A)(2), and further contends that Regulation 17-A of the U.P. Trade Union Regulation, 1927 provides that the intimation regarding any change in the officers of registered trade union has to be sent in duplicate in Form-J to the Registrar, within a week of such taking place. The intimation sent shall be recorded in the Register of trade union maintained under Section 8 of the Act. 7. The intimation sent shall be recorded in the Register of trade union maintained under Section 8 of the Act. 7. According to him, Section 8 has to be read in harmony with Regulation 17-A, and if there is any misrepresentation of fact, the Registrar has to deal with it. He further contended that representation had already been made to the Registrar, who had directed the Additional Registrar to look into the matter and decide the same. However, the Additional Registrar had wrongly relegated the matter to Civil Court without looking into fact that Form-J was not signed by Secretary as mandated by Regulation and had not complied the provisions. 8. Refuting the arguments made from petitioner side, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 3 submitted that Section 8 deals with registration of a trade union, and in no way the said section is attracted in the present case as the trade union was registered way back, and it is a case where the elections have taken place and new office bearers have been elected and the intimation has been sent in Form-J. 9. According to her, Form-J has already been registered on 28.08.2022 and this fact has come in the order of Additional Registrar and if petitioner is aggrieved by the action of Additional Registrar or the Registrar, he has remedy of approaching Civil Court as provided by order dated 07.02.2023. 10. I have heard respective counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 11. The sole controversy raised in the present writ petition hinges around the provisions of Section 8 of the Act of 1926 and Regulation 17-A of the Regulations of 1927. Section 8 of the Act provides for registration of trade union. It is on the satisfaction of Registrar, after compliance has been made by Union, that it is registered and its name is entered in the Register of trade union maintained by Registrar. 12. The U.P. Amendment made in the year 2022 only provides that in case such registration has been obtained by misrepresentation of fact or concealment of fact, or on the basis of forged documents then such registration shall be deemed null and void ab-initio and may be cancelled by registering officer and legal action shall be taken against such trade union. The U.P. Amendment made in the year 2022 only provides that in case such registration has been obtained by misrepresentation of fact or concealment of fact, or on the basis of forged documents then such registration shall be deemed null and void ab-initio and may be cancelled by registering officer and legal action shall be taken against such trade union. It does not provide any mechanism in case where any election of trade union has taken place for electing office bearer. 13. The regulations made in the year 1927 clearly provide in Regulation 17-A that intimation in regard to any change in office bearer of registered trade union has to be sent in duplicate in Form-J to the Registrar, within a week of such taking place. 14. Then, the Registrar who was under the intimation of Secretary was to record the change in Register of trade union maintained under Section 8 of the Act. 15. According to regulation, the intimation in regard to change of office bearer of registered trade union has to be recorded in Register of trade union maintained under Section 8, meaning thereby that once the trade union has been registered and its name has been entered under Section 8 in the Register, any change taking place in the list of office bearers of registered trade union has to be entered into that Register. 16. In the instant case, the list of office bearers was already registered by Registrar on 28.08.2022 under Regulation 17-A. 17. The argument of petitioner counsel to the extent that Section 8 is attracted in the present case has no force, as it is not a case of registration of a trade union, but a case where the change in the officers of registered trade union has taken place and Regulation 17-A is attracted. The list sent to the Registrar has already been registered. 18. Section 8 and Regulation 17-A operate totally in different fields, as one is applied to the case of fresh registration and the amendment made therein provides for declaring such representation as null and void ab initio in case of misrepresentation of fact or concealment of fact, while the other operates in the area where the trade union had already been registered and there is change of office bearers. 19. 19. The dispute raised through this writ petition is as to the submission of Form-J by new elected office bearers through Joint Secretary and not by the Secretary which is a disputed question of fact and cannot be dealt with in proceedings under Article 226 of Constitution of India. The Additional Registrar had rightly by order impugned had directed the petitioner to approach the Civil Court for redressal of his grievance. 20. In view of above, I find that no interference is required by this Court exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.