Allahabad High Court
Hotel Land Mark Employees Union, Kanpur ... vs Up Registrar, Trade Unions, Kanpur And ... on 10 January, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(1)AWC554, [2002(92)FLR687], (2002)1UPLBEC430
Author: R.R. Yadav
Bench: R.R. Yadav
JUDGMENT R.R. Yadav, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned standing counsel and Sri Shekhar Kumar appearing on behalf of respondents.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 12.9.2001 (Annexure-13 to the writ petition) passed by Up-Registrar, Trade Unions, Kanpur Region, Kanpur--respondent No. 1, on the ground, inter alia, that Up-Reglstrar Trade Unions, Kanpur, respondent No. 1, has no jurisdiction to decide the election dispute between the petitioners and contesting respondents after expiry of one year term of their office under bye laws 37 of Trade Unions.
3. Indisputably respondent No. 2 is claiming to have been elected on 26.2.2000 whereas petitioners are claiming to have been elected on 27.2.2000 for the year 2000. It is evident from the perusal of Annexure-13 that the aforesaid dispute relating to validity of election on aforesaid two dates has been- decided by respondent No. 1 on 12.9.2001. The present writ petition deserves to be decided on the aforesaid admitted facts between the parties.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners Sri R.K. Jain that under bye-laws 37 of the Union, the term of the office of elected members is one year and election of the Trade Union has to take place either in the month of January or in the month of February in each calendar year. The learned counsel also invited my attention to Regulation 17A of U. P. Trade Union Regulation, 1927, which provides that intimation regarding any change in the office of Registrar of the said Union shall be sent in duplicate in Form 'J to the Registrar within a week of such change. The Registrar shall, within thirty days and under intimation to the Secretary of the Trade Union concerned, record the change in the Register of the Trade Union maintained under Section 8 of the Trade Union Act. 1926. unless he has reason to believe that the change has not been made in the manner provided in the registered Rules of Trade Union.
5. It is strenuously urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that after expiry of one year specially when fresh election has already taken place for the year 2001, respondent No. 1 has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute relating to election of the Trade Union held in the year 2000 on 12.9.2001. In support of his aforesaid contention, he placed reliance on a decision rendered by Division Bench of this Court in case of Committee of Management, Audyogik Vikas Uchchattar .Madhyamik Vidyalaya Sarniti, Bibra Bazar, MaharaJganJ, district Basti and Anr. v. Prescribed Authority, Basti (Under U. P. Societies Registration Act No. XI of 1984)/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Harriya. Basti and others, 1992 (2) AWC 1225, wherein the decision rendered by learned single Judge holding to the effect that after expiry of a term of the office of elected member, the prescribed authority has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute relating to an election between two rival claimants has been affirmed. U is true that the aforesaid dispute was not under the Trade Union Act, 1926 and Rules framed thereunder, but it was in respect of Societies Registration Act. 1860, wherein under Sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the said Act was interpreted by the learned single Judge and has been affirmed by the Division Bench. There is substance in the aforesaid argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is held that by corollary of reasons proposition of law laid down by the learned single Judge and affirmed by the learned Judges constituting Division Bench of this Court in the case of Committee of Management (supra) is extendable to the facts and circumstances of the present case as the term of the office of both the rival claimants claiming to have been elected either on 26.2.2000 or 27.2.2000 has already expired on the date of decision rendered by respondent No. 1 on 12.9.2001. As a matter of fact on the date of decision after expiry of the term of the office of both the rival claimants for the year 2000. respondent No. 1 has no jurisdiction to decide the validity of the election of two rival claimants, who are claiming to have been elected either on 26.2.2000 or 27.2.2000 specially when respondent No. 1 himself is admitting that fresh election for the year 2001 has taken place and an information has been received by him. The facts relating to fresh election for the year 2001 is supported from Annexure-15 to the writ petition.
6. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the instant writ petition succeeds and it is allowed. The order Impugned dated 12.9.2001 (Annexure-13 to the writ petition) is hereby quashed. It is made clear that the order passed today is confined with regard to election held in the year 2000 between two rival claimants but it has nothing to do with the fresh election held in the year 2001.
7. Cost is made easy.