F.I. Rebello, C.J. - (1.) This is a special appeal by the Union - Roadways Mazdoor Sabha, Uttar Pradesh (appellant No. 1) and another, who claims to be the State President of the said Union. The respondent Nos. 5 and 6 herein also claim to be the office bearers of appellant No. 1. There, thus, appears to be a dispute in respect of who are the office bearers of the appellant No. 1. The" appellants herein, who were the original petitioners, had approached the learned Single Judge to impugn the order dated 25.1.2010. By that order, the Registrar of the Trade Unions had directed the two rival factions, both claiming to be the office bearers of appellant No. 1, to hold fresh elections. It is the grievance of the appellants that the Registrar had no jurisdiction under the provisions of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and the Regulations framed thereunder in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
(2.) A few facts may be set out, which would be relevant for considering the issues which arise in the present appeal. The appellant No. 2 contends that he was the President duly elected at a meeting of members held on 29.12.2008. After holding of elections, the list of office bearers was communicated to the Registrar in Form 'J' on 30.12.2008. Another Form 'J' was submitted by respondent Nos. 5 and 6 claiming themselves to be the office bearers who had been elected at a meeting held at Lucknow on 17.11.2008. The Registrar, according to the appellants, considered the rival contentions and after giving an opportunity, being satisfied that the office bearers led by appellant No. 2 were the duly elected office bearers took the said Form 'J' on record. The office bearers led by appellant No. 1 thereafter held fresh elections on 23.9.2009 as the term of one year was expiring in the month of December, 2009 and forwarded the list of office bearers as required under Form 'J' and the same is pending before the competent Registrar till date. According to the appellant No. 2, the Registrar again proceeded to enquire into the matter at the instance of Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and acting under the pressure from Respondent No. 4, who is the Labour Minister in the Government of Uttar Pradesh, mala fide, reviewed the order and directed the holding of fresh elections. The appellants, in order to avoid legal problems, held elections on 22nd April, 2010. The office bearers led by respondent Nos. 5 and 6, it appears, also held elections on 23th April, 2010. Both the parties communicated the names of office bearers pursuant to elections so held to respondent No. 3 in Form 'J'. The respondent No. 3 has, by his communication of 1.6.2010, cancelled the elections held by both the factions and has communicated the same to appellant No. 2 and respondent No. 6.
(3.) The appellants herein challenged the decision of the Registrar directing the holding of fresh elections, in a petition filed before this Court. That petition came up for hearing before a learned Judge of this Court who, by his order dated 20.5.2010, was pleased to dismiss the writ petition. The grievance of the appellants is that the learned Judge, after holding that the dispute in respect of who are the office bearers of the Union, cannot be considered by the Registrar but by the Civil Court, yet has affirmed the order of the Registrar directing the parties to hold fresh elections, which was beyond his jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge misdirected himself in law in upholding the order of the Registrar, when there was no power to recall the order, once he had accepted the list of office bearers submitted by appellant No. 2 in Form 'J'. It is submitted that the finding by the learned Judge that the earlier order was passed arbitrarily, in violation of the guidelines dated 18th June, 1999 and without taking into consideration the other attending facts and circumstances, clearly discloses non-consideration of the facts on record and the provisions of the Act. It has been pointed out that the Registrar of the Trade Unions did not act on his own but based on the directions received from the Government, which can be seen from the order impugned in the writ petition. Learned counsel has drawn our attention towards several judgments, which we shall consider during the course of our discussion. On the other hand, the contesting respondents pointed out that it cannot be disputed that under the provisions of the Act, the Registrar has no jurisdiction to decide as to who is the duly elected office bearers and that lies wholly within the province of the Civil Court. It is, however, pointed out that the present exercise is academic and futile as fresh elections have been held and in these circumstances no purpose would be served in hearing the appeal, which has now become infructuous.;