KOVAI PERIYAR MAAVATTA DRAVIDA PANCHALAL THOZHILALAR MUNNETRE SANGAM COIMBTORE Vs. COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR REGISTRATION OF TRADE UNIONS CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in this writ petition is for issuing writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2, namely the Commissioner of Labour (Registrar of Trade Unions), Madras and Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Additional Registrar of Trade Unions), Coimbatore, to act in accordance with Section 28 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926, by permitting only the office bearers of the Kovai Periyar Maavatta Dravida Panchalai Thozhilalar Munnetra Sangam whose names are found in the records of the second respondent as representatives of the said Sangam and not to allow any other person to represent the said Sangam in any proceedings under the various labour enactments.

(2.) It is not disputed that Kovai Periyar Maavatta Dravida Panchalai Thozhilalar Munnetra Sangam having Registration No. 2658 was started in the year 1958 and a certificate of registration has beenissued. The union represents thousands of textile workers in various textile mills in Coimbatore and Periyar districts. The writ petition has been filed on behalf of the aforesaid union by S.Doraisamy claiming to be the General Secretary of the said union. It has been alleged that he has been so elected in 1960 and from time to time there has been election of various office-bearers. It has been stated that in September 1996 some office bearers were elected and the deponent S. Doraisamy was elected as the General Secretary and the names of elected office-bearers have been sent to various authorities including the respondents 1 and 2. However, the respondents without following the procedure envisaged under Section 28 of the Trade Unions Act have also permitted other persons to participate in various discussions and proceedings along with the petitioner on the pretext that a civil suit pertaining to the election is pending and till the matter is decided, both the groups should be permitted to represent the workers.

(3.) It is the contention of the petitioner that the civil suit relates to the election in the year 1994, but does not relate to the election in the year 1996. It has been indicated that the suit filed by one Ponnusamy in the year 1994 does not have any relation to the election held in the year 1996, and therefore, the respondents 1 and 2 had no authority to permit such person in various proceedings and they are required to act under Section 28 of the Trade Unions Act.