HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AFR
RESERVED
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 36599 of 2015
Petitioner :- Shiv Prasad Sharma
Respondent :- Union Of India And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhoopendra Nath Singh,Devendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M.K. Sharma Along With Case :- WRIT - C No. - 38407 of 2015 Petitioner :- R.D. Sharma Respondent :- Union Of India Thru' General Manager & 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhoopendra Nath Singh,Devendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.K. Gaur,Manoj Kumar Sharma,Suresh Chandra Dwivedi Hon'ble Suneet Kumar, J The North Central Railway Employees Sangh is a Trade Union of Workmen of North Central Railway Employees1, registered under the Trade Union Act 19262 by the Registrar of Trade Unions, U.P. bearing registration No. 9168.
The petitioner claims to have been elected Central President in 2005, thereafter continued to be elected President of the Sangh till the last election held on 6 November 2013. The term of the elected office bearers is three year from the date of election. The next election is scheduled to be held in November 2016. The petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation from service of Railways on 31 July 2013 from the post of Senior Clerk while posted at Aligarh. Upon retirement, the petitioner made an application on 10 October 2013 before the Working Committee of the Sangh to co-opt as Honorary Member of the Sangh, on the request thereof, the Working Committee resolved on 20 October 2013 for co-option of the petitioner as Honorary Member until 31 December 2014. Upon co-option, the petitioner, in the election held on 6 November 2013 was elected President of the Sangh. The Working Committee on 16 January 2015 resolved not to extend the term of the Honorary Membership of the petitioner beyond December 2014, and as President of the Sangh, consequently the post of the President fell vacant, therefore, the Working Committee co-opted Sri Syed Shakil Haidar as President for the remaining period upto November 2016.
The Secretary of the Sangh, fourth respondent submitted a supplementary amended Form-J on 17 January 2015 before the third respondent, Deputy Labour Commissioner/Deputy Registrar Trade Union, Allahabad, Region, Allahabad3 for registration of the newly co-opted member and office bearers which was duly registered by the Registrar Trade Union on 23 April 2015. Before registration, co-option was duly accepted by the second respondent, Chief Personnel Officer, North Central Railway, Allahabad vide letter dated 16 January 2015.
The petitioner is assailing the aforementioned order/letter in writ jurisdiction.
The submission of Sri B.N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order, passed by the Registrar, Trade Union is in violation of principles of natural justice, the petitioner was not given any opportunity before passing the impugned order, the Working Committee could not have removed the petitioner from the office of President before November 2016, the Railway Authorities accepted the new office bearers without registration of amended Form-J, therefore, would urge that the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary.
Sri A.K. Gaur, learned counsel appearing for the first and second respondents, the Railways would submit that the order is lawful and legal, the impugned order being purely administrative order cannot be assailed in writ jurisdiction, the remedy available to the petitioner is before the appropriate civil court.
Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent would submit that the petitioner was heard, his objection was duly considered before the impugned order was passed.
Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned senior counsel appearing for the fourth and fifth respondents, the co-opted President and Secretary of the Sangh would adopt the arguments advanced on behalf of other respondents and would further submit that the co-option of new member and office bearers were strictly as per the constitution/rules of the Sangh, therefore, there being no illegality or infirmity therein. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing a petition being Writ C-No.53383 of 2014 seeking a direction to the Secretary of the Sangh and Chief Personnel Officer, North Central Railway, Allahabad not to hold meeting scheduled to be held on 9 September 2014 at Allahabad, the petition was dismissed on 7 October 2014 directing the petitioner to take recourse to the provisions of the Trade Union Act or may file civil suit.
Rival submissions fall for consideration.
As per the registered constitution of the Sangh, all the employees of the North Central Railway are eligible to become ordinary member of the Sangh, membership would terminate on the member leaving the service of the Railway or on retirement, therefore, would cease to be member of the Sangh. The constitution provides that persons who are not eligible to become ordinary member of the Sangh may be admitted by the Working Committee as honorary member of the Sangh for the purpose of being elected or co-opted to the office of the Sangh, who shall become honorary members of the Sangh during the term of their office or for the term decided by the Working Committee. The constitution, further provides that in the event of a vacancy occurring of a office bearer of the Sangh, it shall be filled-up by the Working Committee by co-option.
It is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that upon superannuation on 31 July 2013, the petitioner ceased to be ordinary member of the Sangh, thereafter, the petitioner applied on 10 October 2013 for honorary membership for a period upto 31 December 2014, which was duly accepted by the Working Committee. The petitioner thereupon, continued as President till 31 December 2014. The petitioner thereafter did not move any application for honorary membership, consequently the petitioner ceased to be member and office bearer of the Sangh. Upon vacancy of the office of President, the Working Committee convened a meeting on 16 January 2015, in which fifth respondent, Syed Shakil Haider was co-opted President of the Sangh, accordingly necessary information in supplementary Form-J were sent to the Registrar, Trade Union, simultaneously information was furnished to the second respondent which was circulated vide letter dated 16 January 2015 on the same day. The petitioner made a complaint before the third respondent, Registrar Trade Union on 14 January 2015, 20 January 2015 and 27 January 2015 against his removal, requesting the Registrar Trade Union not to register the supplementary Form-J. The petitioner on 3 March 2015 was directed by the third respondent, Registrar, Trade Union to adduce evidence/document in support of his complaint and plead his case before the Registrar Trade Union on 15 March 2015 which being Sunday, petitioner was directed to appear on the following day on 16 March 2015. The Registrar Trade Union upon hearing the petitioner and satisfying himself passed the impugned order dated 23 April 2015 registering the supplementary Form-J sent on 16 January 2015.
The impugned order would reflect that the order was passed after making necessary enquiry and hearing the petitioner, though it was not necessary, as the process of registration of Form-J is neither judicial nor quasi-judicial proceeding, the order passed under Section 28 being purely an administrative order call for no hearing.
Regulation 17(A) of the U.P. Trade Unions Regulations 19274 provides for intimation regarding any change in officers of a registered Trade Union to be sent in duplicate in Form- J to the Registrar Trade Union within a week of such change taking place. The Registrar Trade Union shall within thirty days thereafter and under intimation to the Secretary of the Trade Union concerned, record the change in the Register of Trade Unions maintained under Section 8 of the Act 1926 unless he has reason to believe that the change has not been made in the manner provided in the registered rules of the Trade Union.
The next provision on the point being section 28 of Act 1926 which provides submission of Annual Return to the Registrar in the prescribed form. Sub-section(2) of Section 28 provides that together with the general statement there shall be sent to the Registrar a statement showing all changes of office-bearers made by the Trade Union during the relevant year. It is on the basis of this return that the changes are entered in the Register, this exercise of communication of changes of officers to the Registrar Trade Union on the conclusion of the election of office-bearers and the entries made consequent thereto in the Register of Trade Unions pertaining to the Trade Union cannot legitimately be characterised as the act of registration of the Trade Union under section 8. It is clearly one covered by Section 28 which specifically provides for a submission of a statement to the Registrar showing all changes of office bearers. As there is a specific provision dealing with the subject in term of section 28, it is not possible to accept that the act of registering the changes of the names of office-bearers amounts to registration of Trade Union covered by Section 8 of the Act.
This Court in Iffco Phulpur Karmchari Sangh Vs. Registrar of Trade Unions and others5 observed as under:
"It must be remembered that the discretion which vests in the Registrar under Regulation 17-A regarding effecting changes in the office bearers is not quasi-judicial in nature. It is purely administrative. No party is entitled to lead evidence or to cross-examine witnesses. Section 28(3) rad with Regulation 17-A does not contemplate holding of any elaborate enquiry such as is required in the case of judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. All that the magistrate is required to do is to hold a summary enquiry for satisfying himself before making any changes in the register regarding office bearers whether the elections have been held in accordance with the rules of the Trade Union. The legal position on the subject stands firmly established between the two decisions of this Court. The North-Eastern Railway Employees' Union, Gorakhpur and another Vs. The Registrar of Trade Unions, U.P. Kanpur and ors ( 1975-I, LLJ 396) and 1969 LIC 209, North-Eastern Railway Mazdoor Union V Registrar of Trade Unions. In the latter of these two cases, the learned judges observed thus:
"The implied power of the Registrar to ascertain actual facts from the parties where there appears to be some conflict between the two versions placed before him by means of two forms filled up and filed by two rival groups could not convert the inquiry held by the Registrar in to a quasi-judicial proceeding in which each side has the right to lead evidence and cross-examine witnesses.. Even under Regulation 17-A, the Registrar could only look at the rules and prima facie evidence and arrive at a conclusion to believe, record or not to believe and record that the change is not in accordance with the rules. He can refuse to record any change, even if however to act under Section 17A and ask contesting parties to get an adjudication from a civil court first".
In Chaudhary Raj Kumar Singh and another Vs. State of U.P and others6, the Court while considering the dispute of office bearers of Trade Union placing reliance on Girjashanker Shukla and others Vs. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd Amethi, Sultanpur and others7, held that the power conferred under Section 22, however, does not convert the function of the Registrar Trade Union under Section 28 of the Act into that akin to a judicial or quasi-judicial matter. There can be no doubt about the principle of law that the Registrar of Trade Unions is the authority which is vested with the duty of administering the provisions of the Act. The statutory powers of the Registrar Trade Union are those, which are specifically conferred upon him. When elections are held to the office bearers of a Trade Union, the Registrar Trade Union has not been empowered under Section 28 of the Act to decide electoral disputes. In the absence of any other specific remedy, the remedy of a civil suit would be available having due regard to the provisions of Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Having due regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders, the Deputy Registrar has acted fairly, the impugned order being purely administrative order, the remedy of the petitioner would lie to approach the appropriate civil court for redressal of his grievance.
The connected writ petition is based on similar facts and law, petitioner, therein, contends to have been the Secretary of the Sangh, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already approached the competent civil court for redressal of his grievance.
In this view of the matter, for the reasons and law stated herein above, the writ petitions would not be maintainable.
The writ petitions are accordingly, dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Date: 16.10.2015 sfa/