- (1.) I.A. No. 903 of 2014 This application has been filed seeking intervention in the writ petition. The learned counsel for the intervenors submits that the proposed intervenors are the members of Telco Workers Union and at their instance the proceeding before the Registrar, Trade Unions was initiated. In view of the reasons stated in the application, I.A. No. 903 of 2014 is allowed. I.A. No. 891 of 2014 This application has been filed seeking intervention in the writ petition. From the application it does not appear that the proposed intervenor was a party in the proceeding before the Registrar, Trade Unions. I find no reason to entertain the present application and accordingly, it is dismissed. I.A. No. 1823 of 2014 This application has been filed seeking intervention in the writ petition. From the application it does not appear that the proposed intervenors were party in the proceeding before the Registrar, Trade Unions and hence, this application is dismissed. W.P.(C) No. 6869 of 2012 Seeking quashing of order dated 16.06.2012 whereby the respondent no. 2Labour CommissionercumRegistrar, Trade Unions refused to enter the name of duly elected office bearers of the Tata Workers Union for the period of 201214 in FormB register, the present writ petition has been filed.
(2.) Briefly stated, the facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are summarised thus; The petitionerTelco Workers Union is a Trade Union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 which represents the cause of employees in Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Limited (now Tata Motors Limited). The petitionerUnion has a registered constitution for election of the Executive Committee of the petitionerUnion. For the 200810 election, one A.K. Pandey filed a Writ Petition being W.P.(L) No. 556 of 2008 which was disposed of vide order dated 10.03.2008 by this Court granting liberty to the said A.K. Pandey to file a representation with respect to his grievance regarding proposed election. In the meantime, the said A.K. Pandey was discharged from service with effect from 26.08.2008. The said A.K. Pandey also filed a title suit bearing Title Suit No. 134 of 2008 in the Court of Munsif at Jamshedpur against the elected General Secretary, Treasurer etc. seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining them from acting as members of Telco Workers Union. An injunction petition was also filed in Title Suit No. 134 of 2008 which was dismissed vide order dated 19.12.2009. In view of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(L) No. 556 of 2008, the respondent no. 2 passed an order dated 10.02.2010 that is, about more than 20 months after the direction issued by this Court. By order dated 10.02.2010, the respondent no. 2 refused to enter the name of office bearers in FormB register and directed holding for fresh election. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 947 of 2010 which was allowed vide order dated 30.04.2010, quashing a part of order dated 10.02.2010 whereby, fresh elections were directed to be held within 40 days. In so far as, other disputes are concerned, this Court held that the same may be adjudicated in the pending civil suit. Thereafter, certain amendments in the constitution of the petitionerUnion were made which were approved in the General Body Meeting held on 07.11.2010. In the meantime, on certain complaints received by respondent no. 2, the proposed election on 01.11.2010 was stayed. The complainants led by the said A.K. Pandey and one Arun Kumar Singh raised objection to the procedure adopted for formation of the Executive Committee. After receiving report from the Deputy Labour Commissioner, the respondent no. 2Labour CommissionercumRegistrar, Trade Unions vide order dated 09.04.2011 held the amendments valid and ordered registration of the same. A further direction was issued for holding election in a free and fair manner. Thereafter, General Body Meeting was called on 21.04.2011 for finalising the rules and procedure for holding election of the Union in which no objection was raised and an unanimous decision was taken on 29.04.2011 for holding election for the year, 201114. Consequently, election was held on 14.05.2011 and a list of office bearers of Telco Workers Union was forwarded to respondent no. 2 for entering the same in FormB register. In the meantime, vide communication dated 08.08.2011, the petitionerUnion was informed that in view of order dated 09.04.2011 passed by the respondent no. 2, the amendment adopted by the Union stood registered and a registered original copy of the same was sent to the petitionerUnion. Nonetheless, vide impugned order dated 16.06.2012, the respondent no.2Labour CommissionercumRegistrar, Trade Unions, Jharkhand held that the list of office bearers of the petitionerUnion cannot be entered in FormB register. Aggrieved, the petitionerUnion has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
(3.) A counteraffidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 3 raising an objection to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the election dispute raised for violation of the constitution of Union involves facts and materials which can be decided only in a civil suit. It is stated that in the course of hearing it emerged that the rules of election has been changed by the Executive Committee in violation of the constitution of Union and therefore, a legal opinion was sought from the Law Department. The learned AdvocateGeneral opined that for making new rule and amendment in the existing Rules for conduct of election, approval of General Body is required. In view of the legal opinion, the respondent no. 2 refused to enter the name of elected office bearers in FormB register.;