ORDER
S.K. Dubey, J.
1. Petitioner is a registered Trade Union which has been organised as a representative union under Section 13 of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (for short the 'Act') for the employees in respect of the industry Eternit Everest Ltd., Kymore. The Respondent No-1 in Form E of Rule 17 and Section 17 of the Act applied before the Registrar of Representative Unions for being recognised as representative union in place of petitioner, as the Respondent No. 1 claimed its membership to be more than 51 per cent of the employees employed in the industry. The Respondent No.3 issued notice and called for the necessary information as required by Section 17 and Rule 17. The petitioner, after notice raised a preliminary objection that the application in Form-E is not signed by the General Secretary or the Secretary of the Union, hence, prayed for rejection of the application. The Respondent No. 3 rejected the objection. The petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 22 of the Act, wherein it was complained that the petitioner was not heard as on the date of hearing i.e. on May 23, 1994, the case was adjourned to May 27, 1994, which the counsel for the petitioner noted in the order sheet. The Industrial Court did not accept the contention, as the petitioner did not file affidavit of the counsel who noted the date. On merits, the learned Member Judge of the Industrial Court came to the conclusion that neither Section 17 nor Rule 17 provides that the application should only be signed by the General Secretary or the Secretary of the Union, even though, it is provided in the Form-E. As the application is signed by the President who is a superior office bearer of the Union, the defect is not fatal; utmost, it is merely an irregularity. Aggrieved of that order the petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
2-3. Shri L.P. Bhargava, Senior Advocate with Shri R.K. Gupta for the petitioner and Shri N.S. Kale for the Respondent No. 1 heard.
4. After hearing counsel, this Court is of the opinion, that the petition has no merit for reasons to follow. Chapter III of the Act deals with the recognition of Representative Unions and Associations of Employers. Any Registered Trade Union desirous of its recognition as a Representative Union in respect of any industry in a local area, has to apply under Section 13 of the Act. Section 14 deals with the conditions of recognition. Section 15 speaks of the Registrar of Representative Unions. Section 16 deals with the cancellation of recognition. Section 17 deals with recognition of another Union in place of existing Representative Union. If a Union applies for its recognition in place of existing Representative Union, it has to apply under Section 17 and in the manner laid down in Rule 17 . For proper appreciation, it will be appropriate to quote Section 17 and Rule 17 of the Act at one place:
Section 17:-
(1) Recognition of another union in place of existing Representative union:-
If at any time any union makes an application to the Registrar for being recognised in place of the Union already recognised as the Representative Union for an industry in a local area on the ground that it has membership of fifty one percent or more of the employees employed in such industry the Registrar shall call upon the Representative Union by a notice in writing accompanied by a copy of the application to show cause within one month of the receipt of such notice why the applicant union should not be recognised in its place. An application made under this sub-section shall be accompanied by such fee as may be prescribed:
Provided that no application shall be entertained under this sub-section unless a period of two years has elapsed from the date of the issuance of certificate of recognition to the existing union under Sub-section (2) of Section 13:
Provided further that the Registrar shall not entertain any application from a union for recognition unless a period of one year has elapsed from the date of disposal of the previous application of that union:
(2) The Registrar shall forward to the Labour Officer a copy of the said application and notice.
(3) If, on the expiry of the period of notice under Sub-section (1), and after holding such inquiry as may be prescribed, the Registrar is satisfied that the applicant union complies with the conditions of recognition specified in Section 14 and that its membership was, during the whole of the period of three months immediately preceding the date of the application under this Section, not Jess than fifty one percentum of the employees employed in such industry in a local area, he shall, subject to the provisions of Section 13, recognise the applicant union as the Representative Union for such industry in a local area.
(4) On the recognition of the applicant union under Sub-section (3), the recognition of the Representative Union shall stand cancelled.
Rule 17:
(1) On the expiry of the period of notice under Sub-section (1) of Section 17, the Registrar shall call for necessary information from the Union making the application for recognition under Sub-section (1) of the said Section and the representative union in Form - E and may call for such registers and other documents as he may consider necessary in this behalf.
(2) On receipt of the information called for under Sub-rule (1) and after giving both the parties an opportunity of being heard, the Registrar shall pass orders accepting or rejecting the application giving therefor.
(3) The Registrar shall communicate his decision to the applicant union and also to the representative Union as soon as practicable.
5. A bare reading of Section 17 shows that it nowhere lays down that an application filed under Section 17 of the Act should only be signed by the General Secretary or the Secretary of the Union. However, Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 17 lays down that on the expiry of the period of notice under Sub-section (1) of Section 17, the Registrar shall call for necessary information from the Union making the application for recognition under Sub-section (1) of the said section and the representative Union in Form-E and may call for such registers and other documents as he may consider necessary in this behalf. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 17, provides that on receipt of information called for under Sub-rule (1) and after giving both the parties an opportunity of being heard, the Registrar shall pass the orders accepting or rejecting the application giving reason therefor. Sub-rule (3) lays down that the Registrar shall communicate the decision to the applicant union and also to Representative Union as soon as practicable. True, Sub-section (1) of Section 17 states that the application is to be filed in Form-E, wherein, particulars are to be sent by a Union applying for recognition of a Representative Union in place of existing Representative Union. After the particulars are filled, at the bottom General Secretary/Secretary of the Union is printed, which is meant for signature of the General Secretary or the Secretary of the Union as the case may be. However, it is nowhere provided that for want of signature of the General Secretary or the Secretary of the Union on the application in Form-E for recognition of another Union in place of existing representative Union such application shall be rejected. In the case in hand the Form-E is signed by the President of the union, who is certainly a superior office bearer of the union, against whom there is no allegation that he is not authorised to apply under the Constitution of the Union. Even assuming that the President of such Union cannot sign the application in Form-E, for want of signature of the General- Secretary or the Secretary of the Union, the application cannot be rejected as the defect is not fatal, but is merely an irregularity which can be cured by directing the applicant Union to rectify the defect by signatures of the General Secretary or the Secretary of such Union, as the defect of signing and verification, required under Order 6, Rules 14 and 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, can be cured at any stage of the suit by amendment. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Respondent No. 3 or the learned Member Judge of the Industrial Court have committed an error in not rejecting the application.
6. At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has also raised certain other preliminary objections which still remain undecided. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1 submitted that the petitioner wants to prolong the proceedings, so that the respondent No. 1 may not be recognised as representative Union in place of the Petitioner.
7. Suffice to say, that it is settled rule of practice that piecemeal hearing should be avoided. If a party wants to take preliminary objections it has to take in the written-statement and not by piecemeal applications. After the written-statement is filed a Court or an authority has to raise issues or point for determination. If such issues are preliminary, which can be decided without recording of evidence, the same are to be heard and decided as preliminary issues. However, if the preliminary issue or point for determination which requires recording of evidence, then, such point or issue is to be decided along with the other issues.
8. In view of the above, I direct the petitioner to take all legal and factual objections by filing its complete reply to the application. After the full reply is filed, the Respondent No. 3 shall proceed to decide the application in accordance with law, expeditiously as far as possible with an outer limit of four months from the next date fixed.
9. In the result, the petition is devoid of any substance and is dismissed with no order as to costs.