1. This revision petition is directed against the order, dated 25 January, 1992, passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gulabpura, by which the learned Munsif dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff and held that the civil Court has the jurisdiction to try the present case.
2. Plaintiff Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh and its office-bearers filed a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction against the defendant Fateh Singh, Narain Singh, Anand Singh and Moneen Khan in the Court of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Gulabpura. It was averred in the plaint that the plaintiff-union is a recognised union under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (for short, the Act) and the plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 9 are its elected office-bearers and are entitled to collect the subscription from the workmen, but the defendants, illegally and arbitrarily are collecting the subscription in the name of the plaintiff Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh by getting the false receipt books printed though the defendants have no relation whatsoever with the plaintiff Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh nor are they the office-bearers of the same. They are not even the workmen working in the Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills, but still they got the letter-head of the union printed and are using the same. They are illegally appearing on behalf of the workmen for which they are not entitled and are representing the union before the various Labour Courts and the departments including the Labour Tribunal, the Deputy Labour Commissioner and the Labour Courts, etc., and are also holding gate meetings at the main gate of the mill and are working adversely to the interest of the union. It was, therefore, prayed that a mandatory injunction may be issued restraining the defendants from using the name of the plaintiff-union, collecting the subscription and to make correspondence on behalf of the plaintiff-union and to appear on behalf of the workmen or the union before any Court or the department including the Labour Tribunal, the Deputy Labour Commissioner etc. It was, also, prayed that the defendants may be further restrained to take any gate meeting at the main gate of the Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills.
3. This suit was contested by the defendants. During the pendency of the suit, an application was moved by the defendant-petitioner on 13 July, 1992, challenging the jurisdiction of the civil Court to try the suit. This application was opposed by the plaintiff and the learned munsif, by his order, dated 25 January, 1992, dismissed the application filed by the defendant and held that no industrial dispute has been raised in the plaint and, therefore, the suit is triable by the civil Court. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-defendant.
4. The short controversy involved in the present case is: Whether the civil Court has the jurisdiction to try the suit or the Registrar appointed under the Trade Unions Act, who is the Authority under the Act charged with the duty of administering the provisions of the Act, has the jurisdiction to resolve the controversy and to decide the present matter. The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the jurisdiction of the civil Court on the ground that the Registrar of the Trade Unions, appointed under the Act, is the authority who is charged with the duty of administering the provisions of the Act and, therefore, he is the only competent authority who can entertain and decide the controversy. The question, which, therefore, requires consideration in the present case, is: Whether the Registrar of the Trade Unions, who is appointed under the Trade Unions Act and who is charged with the duty of adjudicating the dispute, has jurisdiction to resolve such type of controversy as has been raised by the plaintiff in the present suit or it is the civil Court who can try and decide the controversy in the civil suit? Generally the civil Court has jurisdiction to try the suit for vindication of the existing civil rights unless the jurisdiction is expressly or impliedly ousted by any particular law. The civil Court will have no jurisdiction to try and adjudicate upon a trade dispute if it concerns enforcement of certain rights and liabilities created under the Trade Unions Act. The Trade Unions Act has been enacted with an object to provide for the registration of the trade unions and in certain respects to define the law relating to the registered unions.
5. Chapter II of the Act deals with the registration of the trade unions. Section 3 deals with the appointment of the Registrar. Section 4 relates to mode of registration. Section 5 makes provisions for the application for the registration of the trade union and S. 6 provides that a trade union shall not be entitled for registration under the Act unless the executive thereof is constituted in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made the reunder provided for the matters mentioned in this section. Section 7 deals with the powers of the Registrar to call for further particulars and to require alteration of the name. This section further provides that the Registrar can refuse to register a trade union until the information required by him under S. 7 is supplied and can refuse to register the trade union if the name proposed is identical to that of some other existing trade union. Section 8 deals with the powers of the Registrar concerning the registration. As per S. 8, if the trade union has complied with all the requirements of the Act with regard to the registration, the Registrar shall have to register the trade union by making an entry in the register maintained and after the registration, shall issue a certificate under S. 9 of the Act. Section 10 gives powers to the Registrar for the cancellation of the certificate of registration issued by it if the certificate has been obtained by fraud or mistake or that trade union ceases to exist or if it has come to the notice of the Registrar that the trade union has contravened any of the provisions of the Act which is required by S. 6. This cancellation of the registration can be made after giving two months' prior notice in writing specifying the grounds. Section 28 of the Act provides that every registered trade union shall send annually to the Registrar on or before such date, as may be prescribed, a general statement audited in prescribed manner of all the receipts and expenditure and of the assets and liabilities of the union existing on 31 December every year and the statement shall be prepared in such form and shall comply such provisions as may be prescribed. Form “D” has been prescribed under the Rajasthan Trade Union Regulation, 1959, by the State Government vested with the powers under the Trade Unions Act, 1936. Regulation 11 provides that the return should be submitted to the Registrar under S. 28 of the Act, 1936, by the 31 July of each year in Form “D”. The Registrar, under the Act, has to perform this administrative function and he can undertake a reasonable enquiry within the scope and ambit of Ss. 8 and 28 of the Act to ascertain who are the elected office-bearers and to register their names. The scope of the enquiry is limited for the purpose of ascertaining the facts. The Registrar under S. 28 of the Trade Unions Act does not discharge any quasi-judicial functions, but he discharges only administrative function. No party under the Act is entitled to lead any evidence or to cross-examine the witnesses. No detailed and elaborate enquiry is envisaged under the Act for determining the controversy between the two rival factions of the union. He has merely to perform a summary enquiry to satisfy himself for registration of the union and for effecting the changes in the register. Neither the Act nor the regulation framed under the Act, gives powers to the Registrar to hold any quasi-judicial enquiry to record the evidence and to decide the claims of the claimants of the rival trade unions. The Registrar, therefore, cannot decide the dispute between the rival office-bearers of the trade union under S. 28 of the Act. The dispute in the nature of rival claims of the office-bearers of the trade unions, is a private dispute which can be adjudicated upon by the civil Court only and not by the Registrar under the Act.
6. The dispute in the present case is not a trade dispute covered, under S. 2(g) of the Trade Unions Act and is personal dispute between two rival unions and, therefore, it is only the civil Court which can adjudicate upon such a dispute and try the suit.
7. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this revision petition and the sane is hereby dismissed.