INDIAN EXPLOSIVES WORKERS UNION Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioners. Let it be kept on record.

(2.) Mr. B.C. Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioners, submit that the Registrar of Trade Unions, Bihar respondent No. 2 has no jurisdiction to hold any election of the two rival Trade Unions in question and has, therefore, challenged Annexure-13, a communication from the Registrar (Respondent No. 2) to furnish certain information for holding of due ejection. This is in the background of an earlier petition filed by the petitioners in this Court which has been registered as C.W.J.C. No. 1262 of 1988 (R) in which by an order dated July 25, 1989 a Bench of this Court had directed that during pendency of that application, no independent Board shall function in any manner, but the Registrar of the Trade Unions may, if he thinks fit, discharge statutory duty in regard to two rival Trade Unions. That writ application is however still pending. Mr. Ghosh submits that the Registrar of the Trade Unions respondent No. 2 cannot be said to have discharged any statutory duty in issuing Annexure 13.

(3.) Mr. Ghosh relies upon the provision of Section 28 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 for the purpose of showing that there is no such statutory power or duty in the Registrar which he can exercise or perform and for that purpose he also placed reliance on a Bench decision of this Court in