Choudhary, J.:— This is an application for issue of an appropriate writ under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner claims to be the newly elected President of the Noamundi Mazdoor Union, and the election is said to have been held at a general meeting at Balijore Maidan at Noamundi on the 27th of March, 1960. Respondent No. 1 is the Registrar of the Trade Unions, Bihar, Patna, and respondents 2 to 7 are the old office bearers, who, admittedly, continued in office till the alleged date of the new election. According to the petitioner, a meeting of the Executive Committee of the Union was held on the 23rd of March, 1960, and in that meeting it was fixed that on the 27th of March, 1960 there will be the annual election of the office bearers of the said Union. The petitioner alleges that on the date fixed, that is, on the 27th of March, 1960, the old office-bearers made a dramatic disappearance from the meeting and, in their absence, the workmen present at the meeting elected one Sri Sanathan Das as the chairman of the general meeting to conduct the new election, and in that meeting a vote of no confidence was passed against the old office-bearers and new office-bearers were elected, including the petitioner as the President of the Union.

2. It appears that this election was not accepted by the old office-bearers, as a result of which respondent No. 1 had to issue notice to both the parties to appear before him on the 16th of June, 1960. From the order of the respondent No. 1 dated the 21st of June, 1960, it appears that the petitioner, on behalf of the new office-bearers, and Sri V.G Gopal and Sri D. Samanto, on behalf of the old office-bearers, turned up with inecessary papers and respondent No. 1 heard them on the 16th and the 17th of June, 1960. He, however, was of opinion that the 27th of March, 1960 had not been finally fixed for the election of the new office bearers and the meeting at which the new election was held was not called according to the provisions of the rules of the Union. He, therefore, held that the decision reached to at the said meeting could not be binding on the old office-bearers of the Union who, under the rules, had to continue till a new general election was held in accordance with law. In those circumstances, he observed that respondents 2 to 7 continued to be the proper set of office-bearers of the Union until such time as proper election according to rules was not held, and that, for the purpose of maintenance of records in the office of the Registrar of Trade Union, no notice could be taken by him of the election held on the 27th of March, 1960. The petitioner, being thus aggrieved, has presented this application, and his contention is that the Registrar, Trade Unions had no authority in law or jurisdiction to hold an enquiry as to the legality of the election and to pass an order directing the old office-bearers to continue till a fresh election was held.

3. Counsel for the respondents has conceded that the principle of law involved in the above submission that the Registrar, Trade Unions, had no power to declare an election unconstitutional, is correct; but he has submitted that principle is not applicable to the facts of the present case. His first submission is that the petitioner himself called for an enquiry with regard to the matter in question and submitted to the jurisdiction of respondent No. 1 and, as such, he cannot be allowed to urge that the Registrar, Trade Unions had no jurisdiction to make an enquiry. It is submitted that the petitioner took a chance of getting a favourable order from the Registrar, and he, therefore, was estopped from challenging the jurisdiction if the result of the enquiry happened to be against him. The above contention, pressed on behalf of the respondents appears to be well-founded and must be accepted as correct.

4. In paragraph 8 of the writ petition the petitioner has himself admitted that he and the other office-bearers of the new Executive Committee pressed for a local enquiry for investigation and examination of the real state of affairs. It appears that the legality of the new election was challenged by the old office-bearers of the Union, and on the 2nd of June, 1980, the Inspector of the Trade Unions wrote to the petitioner asking him to attend an enquiry to be made by him on the 17th of June, 1960 with respect to the election of the new office-bearers of the union, and requested him to bring with him all the relevant papers relating to the election. A copy of this letter is Annexure C to the rejoinder to the counter-affidavit and was filed on behalf of the petitioner himself.

5. On the 6th of June, 1960, the old president of the Union requested the Registrar of Trade Unions by a letter, a copy of which is Annexure 3 to the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 1, to enquire into the legality of the election claimed to have been held on behalf of the men of the petitioner's party. The petitioner also wrote to the Inspector of Trade Unions by a letter dated the 10th of June, 1960, thanking him for his letter dated the 2nd of June, 1960 and intimating to him that he would be anxiously waiting for him with all the papers, as directed by him in his letter, and expressed a hope, that at his instance the grievances of the aggrieved labourers would be redressed. A copy of this letter is Annexure 4 to the said affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 1. It further appears that the enquiry was actually held at Patna, and the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 2 to 7 clearly states that respondent No. It held full and elaborate enquiry for two days in which the petitioner and the men of his party took full and active part.

6. In reply to the above statement, the petitioner in his rejoinder to the counter-affidavit, has given an evasive answer to the effect that it was incorrect to say that the petitioner took active part in the enquiry and that there was no party of the petitioner. It is manifest, therefore, that the petitioner agreed to have an enquiry made by the Trade Union authorities, and, now that the result of the enquiry has been against him, the petitioner cannot challenge the jurisdiction of the Registrar of Trade Unions.

7. Even on merits, the petitioner has no case. Counsel for the respondents has objected to the writ application also on the ground that respondent No. 1 was perfectly competent to hold an enquiry for the purpose of maintenance of records in his office as to who were the actual office bearers, and for, coming to a decision it the point, he could very well consider the legality of any new election claimed to have been made, though, of course, he could not declare that election to be unconstitutional. In other words, the argument put forward is that, for the purpose of maintaining proper records, the Registrar is within his jurisdiction to enquire and know as to who were the actual office bearers whose names may appear as such on the records in his office. It is submitted that the order of respondent No. 1 was made in his administrative capacity and in pursuance of the duties imposed upon him by the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926 (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Act’) and regulations made thereunder. In my opinion, there is much force in the above argument and it must prevail.

8. It appears from the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 that all intimations in respect of changes in names of officers of any Union within a year are maintained in separate files in the office of respondent No. 1 and all such changes are checked against the names entered in the prescribed columns in Form B and against earlier intimations received and annual returns are preserved. The above statement gains full Support from a letter dated the 1st of April, 1960, written by the newly elected Secretary of the Union to the so-called outgoing Secretary of that Union, a copy of which is Annexure 1 to the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 1. By that letter the newly elected Secretary informs the so-called outgoing Secretary about the election held on the 27th of March, 1960, giving the names of the newly elected office-bearers. A copy of the said letter was forwarded to the Registrar, Trade Unions to necessary action. This letter and the conduct of the newly elected Secretary clearly show that the Registrar of the Trade Unions had to be informed about the election for his taking necessary action, such as, recording their names in the register for the purpose of the Trade Unions. In that view of the matter, there can be no doubt that before the Registrar of the Trade Unions could record the names of the newly elected office-bearers in the register, he may have to make a proper enquiry whether the names as supplied could be proper and legal substitution for the old names continuing in the register.

9. Section 8 of the Act states that the Registrar, on being satisfied that the Trade Union has complied with all the requirements of this Act in regard to registration, shall register the Trade Union by entering in a register, to be maintained in such form as may be prescribed, the particulars relating to the Trade Union contained in the statement accompanying the application for registration. Regulation 4 of the Bihar and Orissa Trade Unions Regulations, 1928 (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Regulations’) provides for the register of Trade Unions, referred to in the above section, to be maintained in Form B. Under item No. 7 of Form B, title, name, age, occupation and address of officers of the Trade Union have to be recorded. This form, read with section 8 of the Act, no doubt, shows that this register is to be maintained for the original registration of the Trade Union.

10. The question, however, is whether the particulars required to be mentioned in the said item of Form B could, in law, be amended by substitution in case of change of the officers of the Union subsequent to the original registration of the same. Sub-section (i) of section 28 of the Act lays down that there shall be sent annually to the Registrar, on or before such date as may be prescribed, a general statement, audited in the prescribed manner, of all receipts and expenditure of every registered Trade Union during the year ending on the 31st day of March next preceding such prescribed date, and of the assets and liabilities of the Trade Union existing on such 31st day of March and that the statement shall be prepared in such form and shall comprise such particulars as may be prescribed. Sub-section (2) of that section reads that together with the general statement there shall be sent to the Registrar a Statement showing all changes of officers made by the Trade Union during the year to which the general statement refers, together also with a copy of the rules of the Trade Union corrected up to the date of the despatch thereof to the Registrar.

11. Regulation 14 of the said Regulations states that the annual return to be furnished under section 28 shall be submitted to the Registrar by the 31st day of July in each year and shall be in Form E. The portion of that form relevant to the case under consideration is its last portion, which is as under:—

12. The following changes of officers have been made during the year:

Officer Relinquishing office.

Name. Office. Date of relinquishing office.

Officers Appointed.

Name Age Office Address Occupation. Date of appointment.

13. The above form, therefore, clearly shows that the changes made in the officers of the Trade Union have to be communicated to the Registrar, Trade unions at the end of every year, and the purpose of such intimation to be given to the Registrar, must, in my opinion, be that he may maintain the register so as to include the names of the newly elected officers in substitution of the officers relinquishing office. If that be not so there will be no utility of the above intimation to be given to the Registrar. It cannot, with any imagination, be contended that the information supplied to the Registrar in this regard is only a matter of form, and not of any substance aid utility. The above provisions of the Act and the Regulations read together clearly show that the Registrar of the Trade Unions has necessarily to be kept informed about the changes of the office-bearers for maintaining a proper and appropriate register in reard to the names of the office-bearers for the purpose of proper administration under the Act. Though there is no specific provision, as contended by Mr. Ghose, appearing for the petitioner for substitution of the names of the new office-bearers in place of the old ones yet the provisions referred to above impliedly give jurisdiction to the Registrar to make appropriate, changes in the register regarding the names of the office-bearers of the Trade Union.

14. It also appears from certain provisions of the Act — though not specifically, but impliedly — that it is a part of the duty of the Registrar of the Trade Unions to record the changes of the office-bearers in the appropriate register in order to discharge his duties under the Act. Section 31(1) of the Act provides for penalties for failure to submit returns. Section 33(2) lays down that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act, unless complaint thereof has been made by, or with the previous sanction of, the Registrar or, in the case of an offence under section 32, by the person to Whom the copy was given, within six months of the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed. It, therefore, appears, that, if there is a failure to submit return as required under section 28 of the Act, the officers of the Trade Union have to be prosecuted with the previous sanction of the Registrar under the Act. According to Regulation 14, the returns have to be submitted to the Registrar by the 31st day of July in each year. It is conceded that the old office-bearers continue up to the 31st day of March of a particular year and the new office-bearers start functioning from the 1st day of April, of that year. It is, therefore, manifest that the returns required by section 28 of the Act, which have to be filed by the 31st of July in each year, will have to be filed by the new office-bearers, although the statements made in the returns related to the period when the old office-bearers were functioning. If, therefore, the new office-bearers do not submit the returns, they may have to be prosecuted, with the previous sanction of the Registrar for failure to submit the same, and, in order that the Registrar could give sanction for prosecution of such new office-bearers, it is essential and a part of his duty to ascertain and know who those new office-bearers were. In other words, the Registrar, for the purpose of the Act, has to maintain an up to date register recording the names of the office-bearers existing at the relevant time. Without maintaining such register with names of new office-bearers substituted for the old ones, the Registrar, in my opinion, cannot be expected to see that the provisions of the Act have been legally complied with. In substituting the names of the new office-bearers, the Registrar has, therefore, to find if those new office-bearers were legally elected because, if their election is not legal, the may be a grave doubt whether they could be prosecuted for failure to submit the returns.

15. It is obvious, therefore, that, on being informed about the election of the new office-bearers, the Registrar is within his rights to ascertain whether they were legally elected so as to be recorded in the register maintained for the purpose and to be bound for compliance of the provisions of the Act. In other words, the Registrar has full jurisdiction to enquire about the legality of the new election for the purpose of maintaining a proper register showing the names of the office-bearers who may be at the relevant time required to comply with the provisions of the Act or to be dealt with in accordance therewith. In this particular case, the order of the Registrar clearly shows that the election of the new office-bearers was not accepted by him to be legal only for the purpose of maintenance of records in his office to facilitate the administration under the Act. There is thus no merit in this application, which must fail. It is, accordingly, dismissed with costs. Hearing fee Rs. 150.00

Ramaswami, C.J:— I agree.

EF/J/D.H.Z

16. Application dismissed.