SANJEEVA REDDI G Vs. REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ petitions raise the question as to the jurisdiction and powers of the Registrar under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), in cases where there is a change of office-bearers in the period intervening the submission of annual audit statement of account.

(2.) THE facts in Writ Petition No. 85 of 1967 are that the petitioner therein claims to be the president of the Sirsilk Employees' Union, Sirpur, which is a registered trade union bearing register No. 67. It is stated that in the election held on 29 January 1966, the petitioner was elected as the president and the election of the office-bearers was communicated to the Registrar of Trade Unions under the provisions of the Act along with the annual auditor's statement of account as provided for in Section 28, Sub-section (2) of the Act.

(3.) THE union had placed before the management the demands with regard to the weaving department and a letter was addressed by the general secretary of the union to the management concerned on 4 September 1966, On the refusal of the management to accede to the said demands and on failure of the conciliation proceedings, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued a notification making a reference to the industrial tribunal of certain demands on behalf of the union. The union was also asked to take a ballot in the last week of October 1966, in regard to the demands made on behalf of the union. It is alleged in the affidavit that the Minister for Labour and the Labour Department of the Government of Andhra Pradesh made common cause with respondent 3 who had in fact nothing to do with the workmen of the Sirsilk factory. Respondent 3 tried to form a rival union and made an application for the registration of that union and registration No. 2976 was also allotted to the said union. Respondent 3 having found that the formation of the rival union was not in any way going to affect or otherwise prejudicially disturb the union of which the petitioner was the president, it is alleged in the affidavit that he formed an ad hoc committee without any reference or notice to the petitioner or to the office-bearers of the union bearing register No. 67 and elected some office-bearers disclosing respondent 3 as the president. The so-called election of respondent 3 and the office-bearers is challenged by the petitioner on the ground that they had no right or authority to convene any general council meeting and all the proceedings alleged to have been taken by them in the general council are void and ineffective.