Dhani Ram Manjhi vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 5003 Jhar

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                      [Civil Writ Jurisdiction]
                          W.P.(L) No. 5050 of 2021
      Dhani Ram Manjhi                                          .... .. ... Petitioner
                                  Versus
      State of Jharkhand & Ors.                                 .. ... ... Respondents
                                      ...........

CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO .........

       For the Petitioner                     : Mr. Uday Prakash, Advocate
       For the Respondent-State               : Mr. Deepankar, AC to AG
                                      ......

02/ 23.12.2021. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioner- Dhani Ram Manjhi claiming himself to be Secretary General of Registered Trade Union of the then Bihar has applied before the Jharkhand State pursuant to the notice issued by Labour, Employment and Training Department, Government of Jharkhand for application for re-registration as a Trade Union under Section 5 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Uday Prakash has submitted that earlier petitioner moved before this Court in W.P.(L) No. 394 of 2021, which was dismissed as withdrawn after some argument with a liberty to the petitioner to agitate the issue in accordance with law and thereafter the petitioner has filed an application for registration. But the impugned order passed by the Registrar is misconceived as he has passed an order with regard to the recognition of valid trade union before the Tenughat Vidhyut Nigam Limited, Bokaro at Lalpania.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that recognition can be provided on the basis of largest member of the Trade Union by the employer i.e. Tenughat Vidhyut Nigam Limited, but not by the Registrar. The only duty of the Registrar is to give registration and all the registered Trade Union shall be considered by the employer and then they will give recognition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that impugned order passed by the Registrar, Labour Union, Jharkhand as contained in Memo No.02/T-2-10-05/2020, 644, Ranchi dated 29.06.2020 is thus bad in law.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon Section 4 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926, which reads as follows:-

"4. Mode of registration- (1) Any seven or more members of a Trade Union may, by subscribing their names to the rules of the Trade union and by otherwise complying with the provisions of this Act with respect to registration, apply for registration of the Trade Union under this Act."

Learned counsel for the petitioner has thus submitted that even the report which was called for from the SDO, shows that petitioner's Union has seven numbers, as such, under Section 4 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926, it was

incumbent upon the Registrar to register the Union of the petitioner to be registered union along with others and thereafter recognition is to be provided by employer on the basis of the registration.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has thus submitted that not registering the Trade Union of Dhani Ram Manjhi is beyond the scope of Section 4, as such, the impugned order whereby Registration has been refused passed by the Registrar is bad in law.

To buttress his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Air India Employees Guild, Mumbai vs. Air India, Ltd, Mumbai and Others reported in 2007 (1) L.L.N. 491, part of para 15, of the same reads as follows:

15...... The Trade Unions Act, 1926 does not provide for the procedure for recognition or verification of membership of an union or as to who holds majority of membership in the industry or establishment. Similarly there is absence of provisions in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

and thus submitted that impugned order may be set aside.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that authority has to act administratively and has to grant certificate as per Section 8 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926, which reads as follows:

"8. Registration - The Registrar, on being satisfied that Trade Union has complied with all the requirements of this Act in regard to registration, shall 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 application for registration."

Learned counsel for the petitioner has thus submitted that the Registrar has adjudicated the issue on the basis of a report called for from the Sub-Divisional Officer which is beyond his jurisdiction.

Learned counsel for the respondent- State, Mr. Deepankar, AC to AG has opposed the prayer and submitted that several persons can apply for registration of a Trade Union before the Registrar. The Registrar has to act in accordance with Section 4 so as to have eligibility criteria, which requires that the minimum persons should be 100 or should not be less than 10% of the total employees whichever is less.

Learned counsel for the respondent- State has submitted that to pass an administrative order the reasoned order must be passed by the Registrar and thus Registrar has passed a reasoned order on the basis of claim made by all the three unions by calling for a report from the Management of Tenughat Vidhyut Nigam Limited vide letter no. 1402 dated 09.12.2020, who has informed that total employees are 444 in number. Three unions, one led by Sri Babuli Soren and

another led by Enul Hoda and third one led by this petitioner (Dhani Ram Manjhi) were claiming registration. Under proviso of Section 4 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926, it is specifically mentioned that no trade union of workmen shall be registered unless at least 10% or 100 of the workmen, whichever is less engaged or employed in the establishment or Industry with which it is connected are the members of such trade union on the date of making application for registration, as such, the Registrar has considered the reports submitted by the Sub-Divisional Officer as there is a claim by three unions. As per the report, Enul Hoda group has 27 members, Babuli Soren groups has 345 members and petitioner (Dhani Ram Manjhi) group has only 7 and 10 members do not belongs to any of the trade union. Thus in view of proviso of Section 4, the Registrar has rightly refused under Section 8 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926.

Learned counsel for the respondent- State has thus submitted that Registration can be granted after having 10 % or 100 of the workmen whichever is less, as such, impugned order does not require any interference of this Court.

Considering the rival submissions of the parties, looking into the facts and circumstances of the case and the order passed by the Registrar on the basis of his satisfaction recorded from the report of the Sub-Divisional Officer, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the Impugned order.

Accordingly, the instant Writ Petition is hereby dismissed.

R.S.                                                     (Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)