B.P Singh and B.P Sharma, JJ.:— The petitioners herein claim to be office bearers of Indian Cable Workers' Union, Golmuri, Jamshedpur. Petitioner no. 1 claims to be the President while petitioner no. 2 claims to be the General Secretary of the said Workers' Union. They have impugned the orders passed by respondent no. 3 dated 7th May, 1984 and 9th April, 1986. Annexure-12 is the order dated 7th May, 1984 whereby the Joint Labour Commissioner has referred the internal disputes of the Union for adjudication by the Independent Board, South Bihar Sub-Committee (respondent no. 4 herein). By order dated 9th April 1986 (Annexure-13) the Joint Labour Commissioner-cum-Registrar, Trade Unions has communicated the decision of the Independent Board, which decided to call for the list of members from the rival Unions and directed holding of election under the supervision of the Registrar, Trade Unions. Accordingly, the Unions have been directed to submit the list of Members giving relevant particulars.
2. The case of the petitioners is that there is an Indian Cable Workers' Union which is a registered Union of workers.
3. Pursuant to a notice issued by the General Secretary a meeting of the Executive Committee was convened on 17.1.1981 under the presidentship of Sri Majumdar, the then Vice President of the Union and certain decisions were taken in that meeting. On 19.1.1981 thirty Executive Members of the Union wrote to the General Secretary intimating him about the no-confidence motion which they wished to bring against the President and the Treasurer of the Union, and requested the General Secretary to take necessary steps in this regard. The General Secretary of the Union, accordingly, issued notice to the Executive Members of the Union intimating that a meeting of the Executive Committee shall be held on 31st January 1981. Included in the agenda of the meeting was the no-confidence motion sponsored by some of the members. Accordingly, the meeting was held on 31.1.1981 and the no-confidence motion against the President and the Treasurer was passed. The said meeting was presided over by Sri Umesh, a Vice President of the Union. Thereafter a notice was issued by the General Secretary convening a special general body meeting for ratifying the decision of the Executive Committee dated 31.1.1981 At the said general body meeting held on 28.2.1981, attended by about 900 members, the decision of the Executive Committee dated 31.1.1981 was approved. The case of the petitioners is that thereafter several tripartite agreements were entered into and there was complete industrial peace. According to them, the Management recognised the Union of which the petitioners are the office-bearers. It appears that a suit was filed in the court of Munsif at Jamshedpur being Title Suit No. 218 of 1981 purported to have been filed on behalf of Indian Cable Workers' Union for a declaration that one Sri N.B Majumdar is the General Secretary of Indian Cable Workers' Union, and defendant nos. 3 and 4 named in the plaint were not the General Secretary of the said Union. A prayer was made for restraining the management from negotiating with the aforesaid defendant nos. 3 and 4 in the suit. Later, on 21.4.1981 Sri N.B Majumdar, purporting, to be the General Secretary, filed a petition under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for grant of temporary injunction restraining the management, defendant nos. 1 and 2 from negotiating matters with defendants 3 and 4 acting as office bearers of the Workers' Union. It was pleaded that there was an election held from 14th to 16th October 1977 in which Ramanand Choudhary was elected as President and Rama Shankar Dubey (defendant no. 3) was elected as Secretary. Defendant no. 4, Amarnath Jha was elected as Assistant Secretary. In the same election other office bearers were also elected who were holding office. Recently defendant nos. 3 and 4, the General Secretary and Assistant Secretary respectively indulged in anti-Union Activities and, therefore, the Executive Committee passed a resolution of no-confidence against them in the meeting held on 30th January 1981, which was subsequently approved by the general body. Defendant nos. 3 and 4 were, therefore, debarred from acting as General Secretary and Assistant Secretary. It was alleged that the aforesaid defendants had no right to sit with the Management to negotiate Union matters, and if they continue to do so, the plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury. The application for grant of temporary injunction was rejected on the ground that the plaintiff had no prima-facie case. The order of the court is Annexure-10 to the writ petition. It also appears from Annexure 11, the order of the Munsif dated 9th March 1984, that the title suit was ultimately dismissed for default. The impugned orders, Annexures 12 and 13, have been issued thereafter on 7th May 1984 and 9th April 1986.
4. It also appears from the letter dated 13.6.1986 (Annexure-14) sent by Ramanand Singh (Petitioner no. 1) as President of the Workers' Union objecting to the holding of election under the supervision of Registrar, Trade Unions, on the ground that there was no legal sanction for holding of such election under the direction of the Independent Board. Since the official respondents did not respond favourably to the petition of petitioner no. 1 and on 30th June 1985 proceeded to finalise the voters list, this writ petition was filed on 15th July, 1986 impugning the two orders (Annexures 12 and 13).
5. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned orders have no legal support and they are wholly unauthorised. There was no justification for referring the internal disputes of the Union to the Independent Board, which is a non-statutory body. There is also no legal justification for directing that the election of the Union be held under the supervision of the Registrar, Trade Unions. This, according to the counsel for the petitioners, amounts to illegal interference with the rights of the Union and its members to manage their own affairs. Counsel for respondent no. 6 Sri R.N Chaudhary, who was the past President of the Union, did not dispute the legal position that the Joint Labour Commissioner or the Registrar of Trade Unions has no jurisdiction in the matter. Counsel for the State, however, submitted that since the parties had agreed to refer their internal disputes for adjudication by the Independent Board, the Joint Commissioner-cum-Registrar of Trade Unions got the authority to refer such disputes to the Independent Board, which is not a statutory authority. This is disputed by counsel for the petitioners who submits that there is nothing to show that they had ever agreed to the adjudication of their disputes by the Independent Board.
6. The submission urged on behalf of the petitioners appears to be sound in law. There is no statute or rule which provides a forum for the adjudication of internal disputes of trade unions, nor is there any law which provides a forum for adjudication of disputes relating to election of office bearers. Under Section 8 of the Trade Union Act, 1928 the Registrar is required to 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. In Form B the name of office bearers has to be entered. Where there is a dispute as to who are elected office bearers of a particular Union, it has been consistently held by this Court and by other High Courts as well that it is not within the jurisdiction of the Registrar of Trade Unions to determine which of the rival groups of office bearers is the real one. This is because under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 there is no provision for adjudication of such disputes by any designated officer or authority. Obviously, therefore, when such disputes arise, they have to be resolved only by filing a civil suit in a court of competent jurisdiction. No provision of law or rule has been brought to our notice which authorises the Joint Labour Commissioner to refer for adjudication the internal disputes of an Union. There is also no provision of law which provides for holding of election under the supervision of Registrar, Trade Unions. Counsel for the petitioners is, therefore, right in submitting that there is no legal authority for issuance of impugned orders (Annexures 12 and 13) under which the internal disputes were referred for adjudication by the Independent Board, and upon its recommendation election is directed to be held under the supervision of Registrar, Trade Unions. A similar view has been taken by a Division Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C No. 3516 of 1981 decided on 12th March, 1982. We are in respectful agreement with the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgment.
7. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed, and the impugned orders (Annexures 12 and 13) are quashed. The respondents shall not take any further steps pursuant to the two impugned orders which have been quashed. It will, however, be open to the parties to agitate all matters before the appropriate forum including a court of competent jurisdiction.