Saumitra Dayal Singh, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Alok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pradeep Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3, Sri Jamal Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.
(2.) The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 25.10.2018 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Trade Union/Deputy Labour Commissioner, U.P., Allahabad (respondent no. 2) purportedly in exercise of the powers vested on that authority under Section 28(2) read with sub-section 3 of Trade Unions Act, 1926 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
(3.) Short submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioners in their capacity as the duly elected office bearers of the trade union had upon completion of the successful election process on 24.07.2018 filed the return on Form-J before the aforesaid authority. It is then submitted that the only obligation cast on the Deputy Registrar, Trade Union in view of the provisions of the Section 28(2) and (3) of the Act was to register the Form-J and the changes intimated on that form. He therefore submits that the Deputy Registrar, Trade Union had no jurisdiction to adjudicate any dispute in exercise of that power and, therefore, he could not have rejected the registration of Form-J submitted on the reasoning that certain votes received by the returning officer through electronic mail could not be accounted for. Further, it has been submitted that by thus sustaining the objection raised by the respondent no. 4, Deputy Registrar, Trade Union has committed a jurisdictional error in entering into a dispute and in further adjudicating the same. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the division bench judgment of this Court in the case of Chaudhary Raj Kumar Singh and another Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2015 5 ADJ 709 (paragraph no. 5). Second, alternatively, it has been submitted that, even if the votes termed as invalid for the reason of the same having been submitted through electronic mail are ignored, it would not alter the result of the election. Therefore, it has been submitted that the Deputy Registrar has failed to exercise its jurisdiction in not registering the change informed on Form-J, even if it were to be accepted that the votes submitted through electronic mail were invalid. Third, it has been submitted that in any case, if the election conducted by the petitioners were to be questioned or challenged, the remedy for the same would have remain with the respondent no. 4 to institute a civil suit and not to seek adjudication by the Deputy Registrar, Trade Union. Again, reliance has been placed on the division bench judgment in the case of Chaudhary Raj Kumar Singh and another Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2015 5 ADJ 709 (paragraph no. 7).;