CHANDRADEEP MANDAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners, seek to challenge the election process initiated by the Registrar, Trade Unions, in order to determine the rightful office bearers of the Bihar State Electric Supply Workers Union (Registration No. 569) following an agreement among all its disputing factions.

(2.) During the pendency of this writ petition, the committee constituted to conduct the election, on the basis of the election results, declared vide its memo No. 1190, dated 02.12.94, the faction led by Chakradhar Prasad Singh as the duly elected and the rightful representative of the Union.

(3.) Before the declaration of the election results the Registrar by his order, dated 30.11.93, had rejected, after a detailed examination, the objections raised. By Sidheshwar Prasad Singh (leader of another faction) against the conduct of the election. The declaration of the election results along with the Registrar's order, dated 30.11.93, have together been brought on the record as Annexure-20 to a supplementary petition and also come under challenge. Although the election and its result have been challenged on a number of grounds such as irregularities committed in the preparation of the electrol roll, deviations from the provisions of the Union's constitution, etc. Mr. Rajiv Roy, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, in course of his argument, very rightly, admitted that those objections fell beyond the domain of a writ court. He, accordingly, confined his submissions to the question of jurisdiction of the Registrar, Trade Unions, and submitted that under the Trade Union Act, the Registrar had no authority or jurisdiction to hold the election of Union and to declare on the basis of that election one of the disputing factions as the lawfully elected representative of the Union. In support of his submission, Mr. Roy heavily relied upon a Bench decision of this Court in the case of Bokaro Steel Workers Union and Anr. V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors., 1995 1 PLJR 400. In that decision (of which I happen to be the author) it was held that the Registrar could not direct the holding of election of office bearers of a trade union under his or his nominee's supervision. It will be seen presently how far that decision applies to the facts of the present case.