MUKUND RAM TANTI Vs. S I RAZA REGISTRAR TRADE UNIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for issue of an appropriate writ under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner claims to be the newly elected President of the Noamundi Mazdoor Union, and the election is said to have been held at a general meeting at Balijore Maidan at Noamundi on the 27th of March, 1960. Respondent No. 1 is the Registrar of the Trade Unions, Bihar, Patna, and respondents 2 to 7 are the old office-bearers, who, admittedly, continued in office till the alleged date of the new election. According in the petitioner, a meeting of the Executive Committee of the Union was held on the 23rd of March, i960, and in that meeting it was fixed that on the 27th of March, 1960 there will be the annual election of the office-bearers of the said Union. The petitioner alleges that on the date fixed, that is, on the 27th of March, 1960, the old office-bearers made a dramatic disappearance from the meeting and, in their absence, the workmen present at the meeting elected one Sri Sanathan Das as the chairman of the general meeting to conduct the new election, and in that meeting a vote of no confidence was passed against the old office-heirers and new office-bearers were elected. Including the petitioner as the President of the Union. It appears that this election was not accepted by the old, office-bearers, as a result of which respondent No. 1 had to issue notice to both the parties to appear before him on the 16th of June, 1960. From the order of the respondent No. 1 dated the 21st of June, 1960, it appears that the petitioner, on behalf of the new office-bearers, and Sri V. G. Gopal and Sri D. Samanto, on behalf of the old office-bearers, turned up with necessary papers and respondent No. 1 heard them on the 16th and the 17th of June, 1960. He, however, was of opinion that the 27th of March, 1960 had not been finally fixed for the election of the new office bearers and the meeting at which the new election was held was not called according to the provisions of the rules of the Union . He, therefore, held that the decision reached to at the said meeting could not be binding on the old office-bearers of the Union who, under the rules, had to continue tin a new general election was held in accordance with law. In those circumstances, he observed that respondents 2 to 7 continued to be the proper set of office-bearers of the union until such time as proper election according to rules was not held, and that, for the purpose of maintenance of records in the office of the Registrar of Trade Union, no notice could be taken by him of the election held on the 27th of March, 1960. The petitioner, being thus aggrieved has presented this application, and his contention is that the Registrar, Trade Unions had no authority in law or jurisdiction to hold an enquiry as to the legality of the election and to pass an order directing the old office-bearers to continue till a fresh election was held.

(2.) Counsel for the respondents has conceded that the principle of law involved in the above submission that the Registrar, Trade Unions, had no power to declare an election unconstitutional, is correct; but he has submitted that that principle is not applicable to the facts of the present case. His first submission is that the petitioner himself called for an enquiry with regard to the matter in question and submitted to the jurisdiction of respondent No. 1 and, as such, he cannot be allowed to urge that the Registrar, Trade Unions had no jurisdiction to make an enquiry. It is submitted that the petitioner took a chance of getting a favourable order from the Registrar, and he, therefore, was estopped from challenging the jurisdiction if the result of the enquiry happened to be against him. The shove contention pressed on behalf of the respondents appears to be well-founded and must be accepted as correct

(3.) In paragraph 8 of the writ petition the petitioner has himself admitted that he and the other office-bearers of the new Executive Committee pressed for a local enquiry for investigation and examination of the real state of affairs. It appears that the legality of the new election was challenged by the old office-bearers of the Union, and on the 2nd of June, 1960, the inspector of the Trade Unions wrote to the petitioner asking him to attend an enquiry to be made by him on the 17th of June, 1960 with respect to the election of the new office-bearers of the union, and requested him to bring with him all the relevant papers relating to the election. A copy of this letter is Annexure C to the rejoinder to the counter-affidavit and was filed on behalf of the petitioner himself. On the 6th of June, 1960, the old president of the Union requested the Registrar of Trade Unions by a letter, a copy of which is Annexure 3 to the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 1, to enquire into the legality of the election claimed to have been held on behalf of the men of the petitioner's party. The, petitioner also wrote to the Inspector of Trade Unions by a letter dated the 10th of June, 1960, thanking him for his letter dated the 2nd of June, 1960 and intimating to bam that he would be anxiously waiting for him with all the papers, as directed by him in his letter, and expressed a hope that at his instance the grievances of the aggrieved labourers would be redressed. A copy of this letter is Annexure 4 to the said affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 1. It further appears that the enquiry was actually held at Patna, and the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 2 to 7 clearly states that respondent No. 1 held full and elaborate enquiry for two days in which the petitioner and the men of his party took full and active part. In reply to the above statement, the petitioner in his rejoinder to the counter-affidavit, has given, an evasive answer to the effect that it was incorrect to say that the petitioner took active part in the enquiry and that there was no party of the petitioner. It is manifest, therefore, that the petitioner agreed to have an enquiry made by the Trade union authorities, and, now that the result of the enquiry has been against him, the petitioner cannot challenge the jurisdiction of the Registrar of Trade Unions.