Tata Workers Union Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- motor vehicles act, 1988[c.a.no.59/1988] section 166; [a.k. patnaik, cj, a.k. gohil & s. samvatsar, jj] application for compensation for personal injury death of injured claimant subsequently for some other reasons held, claim for personal injury will abate on the death of claimant. claim will not survive to his legal representative except as regards claim for pecuniary loss to estate of claimant. - (vii) the legislature will, therefore, be well advised to address itself to this lacuna in the trade union act and to take steps to remedy it which has been long overdue. where there is a dispute as to who are elected office bearers of a particular union, it has been consistently held by this court and by other high courts as well that it is not within the jurisdiction of the registrar of trade unions to determine which of the rival groups of office bearers is the real one. ' 7. the law in this regard is therefore well settled that the registrar cannot intervene in the matter of holding election of the office bearers of the registered trade union.orderm.y. eqbal, j.1. petitioner tata workers union, a registered trade union has moved this court by filing instant writ application against the order dated 13.8.2001 passed by respondent no. 2, labour commissioner-cum-registrar, trade union, department of labour, employment and training, jharkhand at ranchi, whereby he has taken decision to supervise union election of the petitioner,2. petitioner tata workers union has its own registered constitution and election rules framed as early as in 1920. the constitution provides for the composition of the executive committee and the members of the said committee shall be elected by the general body members as per election procedure as drawn by the executive committee. the last election of the executive committee and the office bearer was held in 1996-97 and the present executive committee as formed alongwith the office bearer. it appears that meeting of the executive committee of the union was held on 19.4.2001. the committee resolved to hold election of the new office bearers and the executive committee.3. the dispute arose when shri p.k. balmuchu, mla and member of the present executive committee, who is intervenor stated that the election will be held under the supervision of the registrar. trade union. accordingly, the election process was started and the returning officer and the members of the election sub-committee were appointed and the registrar trade union was informed about the circulation of the notices. however, respondent no. 2, registrar trade union after going through the complaints and the documents produced by the petitioner advised the aggrieved persons to settle the grievance, if any, within the union itself. consequent upon, the said later dated 15.6.2001 passed by the registrar notices were issued by the returning officer to submit grievance/suggestions, if any. the registrar held meeting and confirmed the action of the union and election programme was circulated. thereafter the above named shri p.k. balmuchu, the intervenor filed the writ petition before this court being w.p. (c) no. 3526 of 2001 seeking a direction from this court upon the registrar to supervise elec-tion of the petitioner. the said writ application was disposed of on 6.8.2001 by this court holding that there is nothing on the record to suggest any malpractice at the stage of election and no allegation was made against any individual member of the trade union. this court therefore refused to grant any relief but made observation that if the petitioner was apprehensive of any malpractice or irregularities he may bring the same to the nice of the registrar, trade unions who may determine the question of necessity to supervise the election, if otherwise permissible in law. again some disputes arose between the members of the union which resulted in a order dated 8.8.2001 passed by the registrar who stayed election. this time petitioner came to this court by filing w.p. (l) no. 3790/2001. this court disposed of th writ application holding that the competent authority is given liberty to hold election in accordance with law without any interference from the side of the government authority. the said order was passed on 5.12.2001 but during the pendency of the aforesaid writ application the registrar. trade union passed another order on 13.8.2001, whereby petitioner was directed to come with all the records relating to the election. this order is impugned in this writ application at the instance of the petitioner.4. from the facts narrated herein above, it is clear that the election of the union could not be held due to some internal dispute and the orders time to time passed by the registrar trade union in the matter of conducting and holding election of the trade union.5. the power of the registrar under the trade union act. 1926 in the matter of superintendence or control over the internal affairs has been considered at length by a division bench of patna high court in the case bokaro steel workers union v. state of bihar, (1995) 1 pljr 400. the division bench held:'on an examination and analysis of the patna decision (mukund ram tanti's case), the allahabad, andhra and the madras decisions, i come to the following conclusions;(i) in a dispute between two rival factions claiming to be the office bearers of a union, it is open to the registrar to holdan enquiry for the purpose of maintaining and up-dating the register as required to be maintained under section 8 of the act.(ii) his decision in this regard shall neither confer any right on any person or group of persons nor divest any person or group of persons of any lawful rights. (iii) consequently the registrar has no authority or power to issue any direction asking/advising the labour department of the government or the employer to recognise and treat any particular person or group of persons as the duly elected office bearers of the union in dealing with that union.(iv) the registrar, trade unions has no authority or power to direct the holding of election of the office bearers of a union under his own supervisions of under the supervision of his nominee.(v) in the absence of any provision in the trade unions act, any dispute of this kind can only be resolved by means ot a suit filed before a civil court.(vi) the adjudication in a suit at least in this state is normally a slow and time consuming process and does not constitute a wholly satisfactory remedy for resolving the dispute. (vii) the legislature will, therefore, be well advised to address itself to this lacuna in the trade union act and to take steps to remedy it which has been long overdue.'6. the question was again considered by a divisions bench of patna high court in the case of r.n. singh and anr. v. state of bihar and ors., (1998) 1 pljr 730, the court observed that:'the submission urged on behalf of the petitioners appears to be sound in law. there is no statute or rule which provides a forum for the adjudication of internal disputes of trade unions, nor is there any law which provides a forum for adjudication of disputes relating to election of office bearers, under section 8 of the trade union act, 1928 the registrar is required to register the trade union by entering in a register to be maintained in such form as may be prescribed, the particulars relating to the trade union contained in the statement accompanying the applica-tion for registration. in form b the name of office bearers has to be entered. where there is a dispute as to who are elected office bearers of a particular union, it has been consistently held by this court and by other high courts as well that it is not within the jurisdiction of the registrar of trade unions to determine which of the rival groups of office bearers is the real one. this is because under the trade union act, 1926 there is no provision for adjudication of such disputes by any designated officer of authority. obviously, therefore, when such disputes arise they have to be resolved only by filing a civil suit in a. court of competent jurisdiction. no provision of law or rule has been brought to our notice which authorises the joint labour commissioner to refer for adjudication the internal disputes of an union, there is also no provision of law which provides for holding of election under the supervision of registrar, trade unions. counsel for the petitioner is therefore, right in submitting that thereis no legal authority for issuance of impugned orders (annexures 12 and 13) under which the internal disputes were referred for adjudication by the independent board and upon its recommendation election is directed to be held under the supervision of registrar, trade union. a similar view has been taken by a division bench of this court in cwjc no. 3516 of 1981 decided on 12th march, 1982. we are in respectful agreement with the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgment.'7. the law in this regard is therefore well settled that the registrar cannot intervene in the matter of holding election of the office bearers of the registered trade union. even assuming that the registrar has got the power, it appears from the facts and the evidence produced in the instant case that the parties are unnecessary trying to involve the registrar trade union by making complaint, as a result of which holding of election has been postponeded.8. in course of argument, learned counsels appearing for the parties including intervenor agreed that they shall have no objection if the election of the executive committee and the office bearers is held under the supervision of deputy commissioner and thesuperintendent of police, singhbhum east. jamshedpur. i my opinion also in the facts of the case, it is desirable that election should be held in strict supervision and control of deputy commissioner and the superintendent of police, singhbhum east. jamshedpur.9. this writ application is, therefore, disposed of with a direction to the deputy commissioner and the superintendent of police. singhbhum east. jamshedpur to strictly supervise and control the election of the office bearers of union and members of executive committee of the tata workers union. petitioner shall intimate in advance the date of holding election to the deputy commissioner and the superintendent of police, singhbhum east. jamshedpur.

Judgment:
ORDER

M.Y. Eqbal, J.

1. Petitioner Tata Workers Union, a registered trade union has moved this Court by filing instant writ application against the order dated 13.8.2001 passed by respondent No. 2, Labour Commissioner-cum-Registrar, Trade Union, Department of Labour, Employment and Training, Jharkhand at Ranchi, whereby he has taken decision to supervise Union election of the petitioner,

2. Petitioner Tata Workers union has its own registered Constitution and election rules framed as early as in 1920. The Constitution provides for the composition of the Executive Committee and the members of the said Committee shall be elected by the general body members as per election procedure as drawn by the Executive Committee. The last election of the Executive Committee and the office bearer was held in 1996-97 and the present Executive Committee as formed alongwith the office bearer. It appears that meeting of the Executive Committee of the Union was held on 19.4.2001. The Committee resolved to hold election of the new office bearers and the Executive Committee.

3. The dispute arose when Shri P.K. Balmuchu, MLA and member of the present Executive Committee, who is intervenor stated that the election will be held under the supervision of the Registrar. Trade Union. Accordingly, the election process was started and the Returning Officer and the members of the Election Sub-committee were appointed and the Registrar Trade Union was informed about the circulation of the notices. However, respondent No. 2, Registrar Trade Union after going through the complaints and the documents produced by the petitioner advised the aggrieved persons to settle the grievance, if any, within the Union itself. Consequent upon, the said later dated 15.6.2001 passed by the Registrar notices were issued by the Returning Officer to submit grievance/suggestions, if any. The Registrar held meeting and confirmed the action of the Union and election programme was circulated. Thereafter the above named Shri P.K. Balmuchu, the intervenor filed the writ petition before this Court being W.P. (C) No. 3526 of 2001 seeking a direction from this Court upon the Registrar to supervise elec-tion of the petitioner. The said writ application was disposed of on 6.8.2001 by this court holding that there is nothing on the record to suggest any malpractice at the stage of election and no allegation was made against any individual member of the Trade Union. This Court therefore refused to grant any relief but made observation that if the petitioner was apprehensive of any malpractice or irregularities he may bring the same to the nice of the Registrar, Trade Unions who may determine the question of necessity to supervise the election, if otherwise permissible in law. Again some disputes arose between the members of the Union which resulted in a order dated 8.8.2001 passed by the Registrar who stayed election. This time petitioner came to this Court by filing W.P. (L) No. 3790/2001. This Court disposed of th writ application holding that the competent authority is given liberty to hold election in accordance with law without any interference from the side of the Government authority. The said order was passed on 5.12.2001 but during the pendency of the aforesaid writ application the Registrar. Trade Union passed another order on 13.8.2001, whereby petitioner was directed to come with all the records relating to the election. This order is impugned in this writ application at the instance of the petitioner.

4. From the facts narrated herein above, it is clear that the election of the Union could not be held due to some internal dispute and the orders time to time passed by the Registrar Trade Union in the matter of conducting and holding election of the Trade Union.

5. The power of the Registrar under the Trade Union Act. 1926 in the matter of superintendence or control over the internal affairs has been considered at length by a Division Bench of Patna High Court in the case Bokaro Steel Workers Union v. State of Bihar, (1995) 1 PLJR 400. The Division Bench held:

'On an examination and analysis of the Patna decision (Mukund Ram Tanti's case), the Allahabad, Andhra and the Madras decisions, I come to the following conclusions;

(i) In a dispute between two rival factions claiming to be the office bearers of a union, it is open to the Registrar to holdan enquiry for the purpose of maintaining and up-dating the register as required to be maintained under Section 8 of the Act.

(ii) His decision in this regard shall neither confer any right on any person or group of persons nor divest any person or group of persons of any lawful rights.

(iii) Consequently the Registrar has no authority or power to issue any direction asking/advising the Labour Department of the Government or the employer to recognise and treat any particular person or group of persons as the duly elected office bearers of the union in dealing with that union.

(iv) The Registrar, Trade Unions has no authority or power to direct the holding of election of the office bearers of a union under his own supervisions of under the supervision of his nominee.

(v) In the absence of any provision in the Trade Unions Act, any dispute of this kind can only be resolved by means ot a suit filed before a Civil Court.

(vi) The adjudication in a suit at least in this State is normally a slow and time consuming process and does not constitute a wholly satisfactory remedy for resolving the dispute.

(vii) The legislature will, therefore, be well advised to address itself to this lacuna in the Trade Union Act and to take steps to remedy it which has been long overdue.'

6. The question was again considered by a Divisions Bench of Patna High Court in the case of R.N. Singh and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Ors., (1998) 1 PLJR 730, the Court observed that:

'The submission urged on behalf of the petitioners appears to be sound in law. There is no statute or rule which provides a forum for the adjudication of internal disputes of trade unions, nor is there any law which provides a forum for adjudication of disputes relating to election of office bearers, under Section 8 of the Trade Union Act, 1928 the Registrar is required to register the Trade Union by entering in a register to be maintained in such form as may be prescribed, the particulars relating to the Trade Union contained in the statement accompanying the applica-tion for registration. In Form B the name of office bearers has to be entered. Where there is a dispute as to who are elected office bearers of a particular Union, it has been consistently held by this Court and by other High Courts as well that it is not within the jurisdiction of the Registrar of Trade Unions to determine which of the rival groups of office bearers is the real one. This is because under the Trade Union Act, 1926 there is no provision for adjudication of such disputes by any designated officer of authority. Obviously, therefore, when such disputes arise they have to be resolved only by filing a civil suit in a. court of competent jurisdiction. No provision of law or rule has been brought to our notice which authorises the Joint Labour Commissioner to refer for adjudication the internal disputes of an Union, There is also no provision of law which provides for holding of election under the supervision of Registrar, Trade Unions. Counsel for the petitioner is therefore, right in submitting that thereis no legal authority for issuance of impugned orders (Annexures 12 and 13) under which the internal disputes were referred for adjudication by the Independent Board and upon its recommendation election is directed to be held under the supervision of Registrar, Trade Union. A similar view has been taken by a Division Bench of this Court in CWJC No. 3516 of 1981 decided on 12th March, 1982. We are in respectful agreement with the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgment.'

7. The law in this regard is therefore well settled that the Registrar cannot intervene in the matter of holding election of the office bearers of the registered Trade Union. Even assuming that the Registrar has got the power, it appears from the facts and the evidence produced in the instant case that the parties are unnecessary trying to involve the Registrar Trade Union by making complaint, as a result of which holding of election has been postponeded.

8. In course of argument, learned counsels appearing for the parties including intervenor agreed that they shall have no objection if the election of the Executive Committee and the office bearers is held under the supervision of Deputy Commissioner and theSuperintendent of Police, Singhbhum East. Jamshedpur. I my opinion also in the facts of the case, it is desirable that election should be held in strict supervision and control of Deputy Commissioner and the Superintendent of Police, Singhbhum East. Jamshedpur.

9. This writ application is, therefore, disposed of with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner and the Superintendent of Police. Singhbhum East. Jamshedpur to strictly supervise and control the election of the office bearers of Union and members of Executive Committee of the Tata Workers Union. Petitioner shall intimate in advance the date of holding election to the Deputy Commissioner and the Superintendent of Police, Singhbhum East. Jamshedpur.