P.K. RAY Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition has been preferred against the order dtd. 21/3/2016 (Annexure P1) passed by Respondent 2/Registrar, Trade Union, whereby he has allowed the amendment in the bylaws of the Trade Union.

(2.) According to the pleadings of the Petitioners, the South Eastern Koyala Majdur Congress (INTUC) is a registered Trade Union and Petitioner 1 is the General Secretary of the Union. The Union is affiliated with the Indian National Trade Union Council (INTUC). As per the bylaws of the Union, election of the office bearers had taken place on 11/6/2014 for a period of 3 years. Petitioner 1 was elected as General Secretary of the Union and Respondent 3 was elected as President of the Union. After the said election, due to some dispute, Respondent 3, with mala fide intention and contrary to the bylaws, vide resolution dtd. 2/5/2015 and 20/5/2015, expelled Petitioner 1 from the post of General Secretary. Against the said dispute, Petitioner 1 filed an appeal before the Industrial Court. Vide its order dtd. 19/1/2016 (Annexure P2), the Industrial Court granted relief to Petitioner 1. Thereafter, on 4/2/2016, a General Council Meeting took place in presence of the officials of the Central and State INTUC observers in which a decision was taken to expel Respondent 3 from the post of President of the Union. It was also decided to expel Respondent 4 from the post of Working President of the Union. Petitioner 2 was appointed in place of Respondent 3 as President. As per the decision taken in the General Council, Respondents 3 and 4 were expelled from the primary membership of the Union and also from their respective posts by letter dtd. 5/2/2016, which was duly received by Respondents 3 and 4. The expelling notices were also got published in the newspaper on 6/2/2016 and 7/2/2016. Thus, Respondents 3 and 4 were already aware that they have been expelled from their respective posts. Despite that, without any authority, on 8/2/2016, a meeting of General Council was convened by them and they suo motu passed the resolution amending the bylaws of the Union in arbitrary manner. As, on 8/2/2016, they had already been expelled from their respective posts and membership of the Union, therefore, they had no authority to amend the bylaws which were earlier approved by the Registrar, Trade Union as well as by INTUC. Minutes of the General Council Meeting dtd. 4/2/2016 along with Form E showing the name of Petitioner 1 P.K. Ray as General Secretary and Petitioner 2 Dr. Sanjeeva Reddy as President of the Union were sent to the Registrar of Trade Union. Amended bylaws were also sent by Respondent 3 to the Registrar Trade Union. Vide the impugned order dtd. 21/3/2016 (Annexure P1) the Registrar Trade Union has not registered the Form E submitted by the Petitioners and allowed the amendment in bylaws as submitted by Respondent 3. An appeal has been filed by the Petitioners before the Industrial Court against the non-registration of Form E by the Registrar Trade Union under Sec. 28J of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (henceforth 'the Act of 1926'). One part of the impugned order which relates to rejection of Form E submitted by the Petitioners has been challenged before the Industrial Court under Sec. 28J of the Act of 1926 and second part of the order which relates to allowing the amendment of bylaws has been challenged by the Petitioners before this Court by the instant writ petition.

(3.) In their return, RESPONDENTs 3 and 4 have stated that neither the Registrar of the Trade Union nor has the Industrial Court recognised the legality and validity of the meeting of the General Council said to be held on 4/2/2016. The Registrar of Trade Union has specifically held in his order dtd. 21/3/2016 that the meeting of the General Body dtd. 4/2/2016 and the decision taken in that meeting are contrary to the bylaws of the Trade Union and, therefore, the decision dtd. 4/2/2016 has been rejected. Respondent 3 as President of the said Trade Union convened a meeting of the General Council of the Trade Union on 8/2/2016 in which the Petitioners were also invited, but, they did not attend the meeting. In the meeting, the decision has been taken to amend the bylaws. This fact has also been recognised by the Registrar and the order of Registrar has attained finality and it is not challenged anywhere. Vide the impugned order dtd. 21/3/2016 (Annexure P1) the Registrar has passed a well reasoned and speaking order and allowed the amendment in the bylaws which was accepted by the General Body of the Trade Union on 8/2/2016. Therefore, the Petitioners are not entitled for any relief.