N PRASAD Vs. I P CHOUKSEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition raises a question with regard to the ambit and scope of Section 28-J of the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926. By M. P. Act, XXVIII of 1960, amendments were made in the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and Sections 28-J to Section 28-L were, inter alia inserted in the chapter captioned "miscellaneous". Section 28-J of the Act thus inserted by the said amendment reads as under:

(2.) REFERRING to the provisions made in Section 28-J, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in order to attract the jurisdiction of the Industrial court, it was necessary that a person approaching the said court was claiming to be a lawful officer of a registered trade union and a dispute existed in this behalf. The learned counsel has further submitted that it is only when a declaration is claimed by a person approaching the Industrial Court that the Industrial Court will have the jurisdiction to decide the dispute and to grant a relief in Personam and not in Rem.

(3.) THE facts relevant for the purposes of this decision lie in a narrow compass. As per the case of the petitioners, the State Bank of India Workmen union (Bhopal Circle) is a registered Trade Union under the provisions of the indian Trade Unions Act, having registration No. 4859 for Bhopal Circle of the state Bank of India representing Class III and Class IV employees of the State Bank of India. This Union has affiliation with All India Federation known as All India state Bank of India Staff Federation and has its own constitution duly approved by the Registrar. A copy of the constitution has been filed by the petitioners as annexure P-1.