A.N.Varma, J. - (1.) We are disposing of this petition finally at the admission stage after hearing learned counsel for the petitoner as well as Shri R.K. Jain who represents Sri A.K. Jaiswal, the third respondent.
(2.) IFFCO Phuipur Karmachari Sangh is a registered Trade Union. Like all trade unions it suffers from the malaise of factionalism. Two groups have emerged, one led by Rajendra Rai who has presented this petition in the name of the Trade Union, and the other by A.K. Jaiswal, the third respondent herein, who represents the other. For the past two years or more both these warring groups have been vying with one another for seeking recognition in the shape of entry of the names of the office-bearers elected every year at the meeting held separately by them for that purpose in the Register of Trade Unions. In regard to the last year's elections two petitions are already pending in this Court. We are, however, concerned with the elections held by the two groups for the current year, i.e. 1990-91 and the order dated July 3, 1991 passed by the Dy. Labour Commissioner/Dy Registrar, Trade Unions, U.P., Allahabad Region, upholding the claim of the group represented by A.K. Jaiswal and rejecting that put forward by the faction led by Rajendra Rai.
(3.) Aggrieved by the order passed by the Dy. Labour Commissioner dated July 3, 1991, Rajendra Rai has approached this Court by way of this petition. By the impugned order the Dy Labour Commissioner/ Dy Registrar, Trade Unions, U.P., had purported to exercise powers vested in him under a notification dated November 29, 1990 issued by the State Government under Section 3 (2) of the Trade Unions Act, 1926, authorising the Regional Dy. Labour Commissioners to exercise all powers and functions of the Registrar of Trade Unions in the areas of their respective jurisdictions save for the powers and functions relating to registration of trade unions and cancellation of registration, change of name and amalgamation of trade unions under Sections 8, 10, 23 and 24 respectively under the superintendence and directions of the Registrar. More specifically the Dy. Labour Commissioner has purported to exercise powers under Regulation 17-A of the U.P. Trade Unions Regulations framed under the aforesaid Act. It provides for intimation regarding any change of the officers of a registered trade union and the Registrar is required to record the change in the Register of Trade Unions, maintained under Section 8. This regulation is, as we shall presently demonstrate, referable to Section 28 which provides for sending a statement of all changes of office bearers made by the Trade Union. It was in the exercise of this power that the impugned order appears to have been passed by the Dy. Labour Commissioner of the concerned region.;