Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1192 (JHR)

Chandra Shekhar Dubey v. State of Jharkhand

2025-04-28

DEEPAK ROSHAN

body2025
JUDGMENT : DEEPAK ROSHAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsels for the parties. 2. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 18.07.2024 (Annexure-12), passed by the Labour Court, Bokaro in Trade Union Appeal No. 1/2023, whereby the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner was not considered and the same was rejected on the ground that the issue involves a decision of both question of fact and question of law, as such, the same shall be considered at the time of final hearing of the appeal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that Bokaro Steel Workers Union was registered by the Registrar, Trade Union of undivided Bihar; however, the Registrar, Trade Union, Bihar in the year 2017, cancelled the registration of 980 trade unions which were active in the State of Jharkhand after reorganisation and creation of the State of Jharkhand. Subsequently, the Labour Department of the State of Jharkhand published an invitation for getting those cancelled Trade Unions registered with State of Jharkhand. 4. In response to that the Petitioner filed an application along with relevant details of registration. Simultaneously, the 6th Respondent also filed a separate application for re-registration before the Registrar, Trade Union, Ranchi. Thus, two applications, for re-registration of the same Bokaro Steel Workers Union, were before the Registrar, Trade Union of Ranchi, one by the Petitioner and one by the 6th Respondent. The Registrar, Trade Union referred the matter to the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Bokaro to enquire into the matter and after getting the report form the Deputy Labour Commissioner; the Registrar, Trade Union, after granting opportunity to all the parties, granted re-registration of Bokaro Steel Workers Union headed by the Petitioner vide order dated 04.06.2021. Thereafter, being aggrieved with the order dated04.06.2021 of the Registrar, Trade Union, the 6th Respondent filed a writ application before this Court being W.P. (C) No. 2690 of 2021 for quashing the letter dated 04.06.2021 issued by the Registrar, Trade Union, Jharkhand whereby the said respondent denied the application for registration submitted by 6th Respondent on the ground that the name of 5th Respondent did not find mention in the Form-B register. 5. The said writ application was finally heard by a Coordinate Bench of this Court and disposed of by giving liberty to the Petitioner (6th Respondent herein) to prefer an appeal in terms of Section 11 of the Trade Union Act, 1926. 5. The said writ application was finally heard by a Coordinate Bench of this Court and disposed of by giving liberty to the Petitioner (6th Respondent herein) to prefer an appeal in terms of Section 11 of the Trade Union Act, 1926. Pursuant thereto; an appeal was filed by the 6th respondent. In the said appeal filed before the learned Labour Court, Bokaro, even the Petitioner filed a written statement contending therein that Trade Union Appeal No.01/2023 is not maintainable. 6. Subsequently, the Petitioner also filed an application to hear the appeal on maintainability under Section 11 of the Trade Union Act as the preliminary issue. The 6th respondent filed a rejoinder to the said preliminary objection and finally the learned Labour Court vide order dated 18.07.2024, has dismissed the said application of this Petitioner to decide the maintainability of the case as preliminary issue by holding that the issue/objection raised by the Petitioner involves a mixed question of fact and law and as such, the facts and law raised through the petition dated 10.05.2024, will be considered at the time of final hearing of appeal on merit. The said order has been made impugned before this Court. 7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 18.07.2024 is bad in law in view of the fact that the 6th Respondent is claiming itself to be Bokaro Steel Workers Union represented by Shri B. N. Choubey. The learned Labour Court did not appreciate that after the order dated 04.06.2021, the grant of registration certificate in favour of Bokaro Steel Workers Union has never been challenged by the said Union and the certificate of registration dated 15.06.2021 is still valid and further the name of the Petitioner has also been incorporated in Form-B Register which is a statutory one maintained by the Registrar, Trade Union with regard to the name of the elected Office Bearer of the said union for a period of three years in which the name of the Petitioner was incorporated as General Secretary of Bokaro Steel Workers Union. 8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner reiterated that neither the certificate of registration dated 15.06.2021 has been challenged by the 5th or 6th Respondent nor the incorporation of name of the Petitioner as General Secretary and list of Office Bearer has been assailed. 8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner reiterated that neither the certificate of registration dated 15.06.2021 has been challenged by the 5th or 6th Respondent nor the incorporation of name of the Petitioner as General Secretary and list of Office Bearer has been assailed. As such, the impugned order has been passed without taking into consideration that the Misc. Appeal No.01/2023 is not at all maintainable for the reason that it was not a case of registration of Bokaro Steel Workers Union; rather the main grievance of the 6th respondent was that his case by the Registrar, Trade Union was rejected on the basis of documents available on record. 9. He contended that the preliminary issue raised by the Petitioner has been brushed aside by the learned Labour Court by simply saying that it is a mixed question of fact and law; as such, the Labour Court may be directed to decide the issue raised by the Petitioner as a preliminary issue first i.e., whether the Misc. Appeal No. 01/2023 is maintainable or not in its present form. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the 5th & 6th Respondent submits that the 5th Respondent being General Secretary of Bokaro Steel Workers Union though submitted same and similar documents to the Inquiry Officer i.e., Deputy Labour Commissioner, Bokaro as well as to the Registrar, Trade Union, but surprisingly, the Registrar, Trade Union did not consider the same and vide order dated 04.06.2021 rejected the application of 5th Respondent. He further submits that it is true that application was also filed by the Petitioner as well as 5th Respondent, but the Registrar rejected the claim of 5th Respondent though he should have appreciated that there are two factions of Bokaro Steel Workers Union one led by the Petitioner and another led by the 5th Respondent. He further submits that it is true that application was also filed by the Petitioner as well as 5th Respondent, but the Registrar rejected the claim of 5th Respondent though he should have appreciated that there are two factions of Bokaro Steel Workers Union one led by the Petitioner and another led by the 5th Respondent. Since the order was not in accordance with law, therefore, the 5th Respondent challenging order dated 04.06.2021 passed by the Registrar, Trade Union, preferred a writ application being W.P.(C) No. 2690 of 2021 and the same was withdrawn by the Petitioner (6th Respondent herein) in order to avail the alternative remedy of appeal and accordingly, this Court had granted liberty to the 6th Respondent to prefer an appeal and pursuant to that order dated 10.07.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 2690 of 2021, the 6th Respondent preferred an appeal before the Labour Court through its General Secretary, who is 5th Respondent herein, and the same was numbered as Trade Union Appeal No. 01/2023. 11. Learned counsel further contended that though the Petitioner who had raised a preliminary issue with regard to maintainability of the appeal filed by the 5th respondent, but the fact remains that this Petitioner who was 5th Respondent in W.P.(C) No.2690 of 2021 has never raised any objection to the liberty granted by this Court to the 5th Respondent to prefer appeal before the learned Labour Court. 12. Learned counsel lastly submits that the learned Labour Court, considering the law and materials available on record, has rightly dismissed the application dated 10.05.2024 filed by the petitioner raising preliminary objection of maintainability on the ground that the issue is both of law and fact and the same will be considered at the time of final hearing; accordingly, the instant writ application may be dismissed with cost. 13. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after going through the documents available on record, it appears that the registration of Bokaro Steel Workers Union, Bokaro, was made in undivided Bihar under Trade Union Act, 1926; however, the same was cancelled by the State of Bihar in 2017 and pursuant thereto, the Government of Jharkhand issued a notice through Law Department inviting the Trade Unions, whose registrations were cancelled, to make fresh application for registration. 14. 14. In response thereof, the Petitioner as well as the 6th Respondent through its General Secretary namely, Birendra Nath Choubey, filed an application along with relevant details for registration. When two applications were filed, the Registrar, Trade Union vide his letter dated 13.03.2020 and 04.08.2020 referred the matter to the Deputy Labour Commissioner to inquire into the matter and submit a report. Though, the Petitioner and the 5th respondent both filed documents, but the Registrar, Trade Union vide his order dated 04.06.2021 rejected the application of 6th Respondent and vide Memo No. 566 dated 04.06.2021 allowed the application of the Petitioner and granted registration of the Union. Thus, it appears that the dispute is between two factions of Bokaro Steel Workers Union, one led by the 5th Respondent and another led by the Petitioner. 15. It further transpires from record that after the application of Petitioner was allowed by the Registrar, the 5th Respondent challenged the said order dated 04.06.2021 before this Court in W.P. (C) No. 2690 of 2021 and the same was dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty to prefer an appeal in terms of Section 11 of the Trade Union Act, 1926 and it is in pursuance to the said order dated 10.07.2023 passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 2690 of 2021, the 6th Respondent preferred an appeal before the Labour Court through 5th Respondent and the same was registered as Trade Union Appeal No. 1 of 2023. 16. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention here that when the writ application was dismissed and the liberty was granted to the 5th Respondent herein to file an appeal under Section 11 of the Trade Union Act; the Petitioner herein, who was 5th respondent in the said writ application never raised any objection to the said liberty granted by this Court to the 5th Respondent to prefer an appeal. 17. From record it further appears that the Petitioner, apart from filing written statement, had also filed a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the appeal. 17. From record it further appears that the Petitioner, apart from filing written statement, had also filed a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the appeal. The learned Labour Court, Bokaro vide order dated 18.07.2024, dismissed the said application dated 10.05.2024 raising preliminary objection of maintainability on the ground that the issues both of law and fact raised by the Petitioner herein through the petition will be considered at the time of final hearing of this appeal on merits and further adjourned the case on 05.08.2024 for final hearing of the appeal. It appears that the order of the learned Labour Court has been impugned in the instant application and vide order dated 23.08.2024 while issuing notice, the Coordinate Bench has granted stay of the order passed by the Labour Court. 18. Thus, the sole issue which is to be decided in the instant application is “whether the impugned order suffers from any perversity while rejecting the application of the Petitioner to decide the preliminary issue on maintainability ?” To decide this issue, it is necessary to refer Section 8 of Trade Union Act, 1926 which provides procedure before Registrar for registration of Trade Unions. Section 11 of the Act provides for a remedy of appeal to any person aggrieved by any refusal of the Registrar to register a trade union or by the withdrawal or cancellation of a certificate of registration. In the instant case the 6th respondent being aggrieved with the order dated 04.06.2021, filed an appeal being T.U. Appeal No. 1/2023. 19. As stated hereinabove, the appeal was preferred by the 6th Respondent before the learned Labour Court after getting liberty to pursue the alternative remedy and in the said Writ Court the Petitioner herein, though he was 5th Respondent in the said writ application; never raised any objection. 20. Section 11 (3) of the Act further provides that for the purpose of an appeal under Sub-Section (1) an appellate court shall, so far as may be, follow the same procedure and have the same powers as it follows and has been trying a suit under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 21. 20. Section 11 (3) of the Act further provides that for the purpose of an appeal under Sub-Section (1) an appellate court shall, so far as may be, follow the same procedure and have the same powers as it follows and has been trying a suit under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 21. It transpires from record that one petition dated 10.05.2024 has been filed by the Petitioner herein raising the preliminary objection on maintainability of the appeal; however, the Petitioner has neither challenged the jurisdiction of the Labour Court nor mentions any law which creates a bar to the filing of Trade Union Appeal No. 01/2023, which in view of Order 14 Rule 2 of CPC is the preliminary condition for framing and deciding a preliminary issue. 22. By going through the impugned order, it clearly transpires that while passing the order, the learned Labour Court has rightly considered the settled law that when an issue is a mixed issue of facts and law or issue of law depends upon decision of fact then such issues cannot be tried as a preliminary issue. In this regard reference may be made to the case of Sathyanath and Another v. Sarojamani reported in (2022) 7 SCC 644 wherein at Para 17, 21 & 23 the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down the law as under: “17. This Court in Ramesh B. Desai held that the principles enunciated in S.S. Khanna still hold good and the Code confers no jurisdiction upon the court to try a suit on mixed issues of law and fact as a preliminary issue and where the decision on issue depends upon the question of fact, it cannot be tried as a preliminary issue. The said finding arises from the provision of Order 14 Rule 2 clauses (a) and (b). After the amendment, discretion has been given to the court by the expression "may" used in sub-rule (2) to try the issue relating to the jurisdiction of the court i.e. territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction, or a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force i.e. the bar to file a suit before the civil court such as under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and numerous other laws particularly relating to land reforms. Hence, if Order 14 Rule 2 is read along with Order 12 Rule 5, the court is expected to decide all the issues together unless the bar of jurisdiction of the court or bar to the suit in terms of sub-rule (2) clauses (a) and (b) arises. The intention to substitute Rule 2 is the speedy disposal of the lis on a question which oust either the jurisdiction of the court or bars the plaintiff to sue before the civil court. 21. The provisions of Order 14 Rule 2 are part of the procedural law, but the fact remains that such procedural law had been enacted to ensure expeditious disposal of the lis and in the event of setting aside of findings on preliminary issue, the possibility of remand can be avoided, as was the language prior to the unamended Order 14 Rule 2. If the issue is a mixed issue of law and fact, or issue of law depends upon the decision of fact, such issue cannot be tried as a preliminary issue. In other words, preliminary issues can be those where no evidence is required and on the basis of reading of the plaint or the applicable law, if the jurisdiction of the court or the bar to the suit is made out, the court may decide such issues with the sole objective for the expeditious decision. Thus, if the court lacks jurisdiction or there is a statutory bar, such issue is required to be decided in the first instance so that the process of civil court is not abused by the litigants, who may approach the civil court to delay the proceedings on false pretext. 23. The different judgments of the High Court referred to above are in consonance with the principles laid down by this Court in Ramesh B. Desai that not all issues of law can be decided as preliminary issues. Only those issues of law can be decided as preliminary issues which fell within the ambit of clause (a) relating to the "jurisdiction of the Court" and (b) which deal with the "bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force". Only those issues of law can be decided as preliminary issues which fell within the ambit of clause (a) relating to the "jurisdiction of the Court" and (b) which deal with the "bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force". The reason to substitute Rule 2 is to avoid piecemeal trial, protracted litigation and possibility of remand of the case, where the appellate court differs with the decision of the trial court on the preliminary issues upon which the trial court had decided.” 23. It is further evident from perusing the impugned order that the learned Labour Court has also considered the averments made in the petition dated 10.05.2024 and observed that neither jurisdiction of the Labour Court has been challenged; nor the appeal is barred under any law. This Court cannot accept the contention of the Petitioner that the preliminary issue on maintainability raised by him should have been decided first; when the core issue involved in the said appeal is as to which of the two rival factions being one represented by 5th respondent and another by the Petitioner, is the actual representative of Bokaro Steel Workers Union. 24. As a matter of fact, adjudication on this issue by the registrar by his order dated 04.06.2021 whereby he recognises one faction and refuses to recognise another faction is beyond his jurisdiction and power under provision of Trade Union Act. In this regard, the law is well settled that the dispute between the two faction groups of the Union as to who are the elected Office Bearers of the Unions can only be decided by a suit in the Court of competent jurisdiction and such dispute cannot be adjudicated by the Registrar of the Trade Union. 25. As stated hereinabove, from bare perusal of the impugned order, it is clear and apparent that there is a serious dispute between the two Unions. Accordingly, there is no error committed by the learned Labour Court in rejecting the petition dated 10.05.2024 on the ground that the issue involved in the said appeal is a mixed question of facts and law. 26. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands dismissed. However, there is no order to cost. Pending IAs, if any, also stands closed.