P K BALMUCHU Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition the order dated 31.12.1997 passed by the Additional Registrar of Trade Unions, Government of Bihar (Respondent No. 3) has been sought to be quashed and issuance of a writ of certiorari with regard to the allowance of the amendment of the Constitution of the Tata Workers ' Union (Respondent No. 4).

(2.) ALTHOUGH the short point involved in this writ petition is whether the impugned order as contained in Annexure -7 can be sustained in law when the same is of review of the earlier orders on the same subject passed by the Labour Commissioner -cum - Registrar of Trade Unions (respondent no. 2) as contained in An -nexure -6 dated 20.3.97 and Annexure -R4/A dated 22.3.97, the facts and the chequered history is required to be reiterated for undertaking the circumstances in which those orders as mentioned above had been passed. The three petitioners in this writ petition are admittedly the members of the Tata Workers ' Union at Jamshedpur, the respondent no. 4 in this case. The petitioner no. 1 is also a member of the Executive Committee of the Union and he is also an elected representative of the people and is a member of the Legislative Assembly Bihar from Ghatshila Constituency. The respondent No. 4 i.e. the Tata Workers ' Union is a registered Trade Union under the provisions of the Trade Union Act, 1926 and the same is affiliated to Indian National Trade Union Congress (INTUC). In pursuance of the election of the Union held in 1989 an Executive Committee was constituted under the then Constitution of the Union. The office bearers being elected by the Executive Committee of the Union started a process for substantial amendment of the Constitution of the Tata Workers ' Union and drafted a proposed amendment. The said draft was ratified by the General Body of the members on 20.9.91 and then the said amendment was sent to the Registrar of Trade Unions, for registering the same. The proposed amendments are contained in Annexure -1 to the writ petition. It is the contention of the petitioners that said proposed amendments were never put before the General Body of the members of the Union and it was not ratified by the majority of the workers as about 20,000 (twenty thousand) workers were opposing such amendments. The Union has a member of about 35,000 (thirty five thousand) workers of the TISCO and its allied organisation. Although the proposed amendments were sent to the Registrar of Trade Union but the same was not considered by the respondent no. 2 and, as such, one Shri B.K. Singh filed a writ petition being CWJC No. 75 of 1996 (R). In the meantime notices were issued for holding of election of the Union for a period of two years, namely, 1994 under the existing constitution and the Sub -Committee was nominated to conduct the election. When the amendment in the constitution had been refused by the Registrar, Trade Union then again Shri B.K. Singh moved this Court in CWJC No. 2909 of 1996 (R) wherein prayer was made for, quashing the order dated 10.4.1996 passed by the Respondent No. 2. The said writ petition was disposed of vide its order dated 2.12.1996 directing the Labour Commissioner -cum -Registrar (respondent no. 2) to consider the representation filed by the Tata Workers ' Union, Jamshedpur and to pass an appropriate order. The said order is annexed as Annexure 4 and 4/A to this writ petition. Subsequent to the order passed in CWJC No. 2909 of 1996 (R) the said petitioner B. K. Singh filed a representation before the Respondent No. 2 on 29.12.1996 for considering the amendment in the constitution of the Union. The vital point in that proposed amendment was to increase the term of its office bearers of the Union from two years to five years. But on the representation also no order was passed by the Registrar, respondent no. 2 and then the said B. K. Singh again filed CWJC No. 768 of 1997 (R) for a direction upon the Registrar of Trade Unions to pass apropriate order. In that writ petition the Registrar of Trade Unions appeared and filed a counter affidavit annexing the order dated 20.3.1997 as Annexure -B stating that the proposed amendment had already been refused/rejected by a comprehensive resasoned order. That comprehensive order is contained in Annexure -6 to this writ petition as already mentioned above. Consequent to such order being passed by the Registrar of Trade Union in CWJC No. 768 of 1997 (R) was withdrawn and after that election for the Executive Body of the Union was held under the existing constitution for the period 1996 -97 then the respondent no. 4 filed CWJC No. 3306 of 1997 (R) specifically praying therein for the amendment of the constitution and did not mention about the order already passed by respondent no. 2 on 20.3.97 although in all the above mentioned writ petitions respondent no. 4 was appearing. Petitioner no. 2 and 3 filed intervention petition in CWJC No. 3306 of 1997 (R) but then the writ petition was withdrawn on 27.4.1998 as in the meantime respondent no. 3 had already passed an order dated 31.12.1997 as contained in Annexure -7. Such order dated 31.12.1997 as contained in Annexure -7 has been impugned in this writ petition on the ground that in the earlier order dated 20.3.1997 a very detailed order was passed by the respondent no. 2 refusing the amendment giving cogent reasons for his non - satisfaction and it was also mentioned that after the General Body meeting in the year 1991 new office bearers have come after the election was held and the proposed amendment had not been passed by the General Body after the new Election or by the Executive Committee and direction was made to place those proposed amendments before the General Body and the Executive Members.

(3.) IN the counter affidavit filed it is submitted that the petitioner no. 1 took the initiative while he was an elected member for the purpose of amendment and now when he sought for amendment has been allowed by Annexure -7 he is coming to challenge the same as he has lost in the election meaning thereby he wanted to retain in the office more than the period prescribed under the old constitution and when he lost the election then he is opposing the amendment. It has further been contended that in the earlier writ petition the order passed on 20.3.1997 had not been mentioned as the same was never being communicated to the respondent no. 4 and they have only knowledge about the order passed on 22.3.1997 by the Registrar as contained in Annexure -R/A and, as such, there was no suppression from the side of respondent no. 4 in filing the previous writ petition. It has also been contended that order impugned is an Executive Order and the same does not require any reasons to be given and no question of review of Executive order arises rather the executive order passed if on substantial compliance of the provisions of the Act and the rules contained then there is no scope to challenge the same.