Oil And Natural Gas Commission Workmen'S Association And Others v. State Of West Bengal And Others

JUDGMENT

1. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus declaring that a decision of the respondent 2, the Registrar of Trade Unions, Department of Labour, Government of West Bengal, in the matter of adjudication on the legality and validity of the election of office-bearers of O.N.G.C Workmen's Association (copy of which is annexure D to the writ petition) and the order of the respondent 4, the Joint Director (I.R), as communicated under Memo No. CAL/CR/IR/ONGCWA/87-CONF, dated 8 June, 1987 (copy of which is annexure F to the writ petition) are not valid, legal and proper, and, to rescind, recall and withdraw the aforementioned decision and the order. It is stated in the writ petition that the petitioner 1 is a registered trade union bearing registration No. 10641 having its office at P45, Taratolla Road, Calcutta, and its members are employees of the respondent 5 Oil and Natural Gas Commission in its different offices in the State of West Bengal. The petitioners 2 to 6 are alleged to be the office-bearers of the petitioner 1 association. It is further stated that the petitioner 1 association was formed in the year 1972, and duly registered under the Indian Trade Unions Act and since then it carried out the activities of the trade union amongst the employees. A dispute arose as to the election of the office-bearers of the said association and resulting in intra-union rivalry. A previous writ petition was filed by Oil and Natural Gas Commission Workmen's Association bearing the self-same registration No. 10641, dated 7 July, 1972, having office at 50, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Calcutta-71, being represented by Sri Shyamal Kanti Das and four others who are the respondents 8 to 12 in the present writ application. The earlier writ application being C.O No. 4392 (W) of 1987 was filed to declare that the election of office-bearers held on 4 March, 1987 was a valid one and the respondents 3. 4 and 6 being O.N.G.C the Regional Director, Central Region, O.N.G.C and the Joint Director (Industrial Relation), O.N.G.C, are legally bound to negotiate and discuss all labour matters with that body only and not with the office-bearers/executive members of the said association formed upon the election held on 4 July, 1986. The earlier writ petition was moved upon notice to the Government Pleader, High Court, representing the Mate of West Bengal, the Regional Director, Central Region, O.N.G.C and the Senior Central Government Advocate representing Union of India. Upon hearing the learned lawyers appearing for the respective parties on 8 May, 1987, it transpired that the learned advocate for O.N.G.C, produced a copy of the letter written by the Deputy Registrar (Trade Unions), West Bengal, under Memo No. 306, dated 4 April, 1987, that regarding representative body of the union in question, the matter was being examined by the Registrar of the Trade Unions who is alleged to have the jurisdiction to enquire about the legality of the election of new office-bearers of the trade-union, the writ petition was disposed by directing the Registrar of Trade Unions, West Bengal, to adjudicate upon the grievances within a period of 4 (four) weeks from the date of communication of the order and all the questions as raised in the aforementioned earlier writ petition were left open. The Registrar of Trade Unions was directed to decide the matter by passing a speaking and reasoned order by giving an opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned. The said writ petition was, however, disposed without serving any notice to other private respondents.

2. Pursuant to the said order, dated 8 May, 1987, passed by this Court, the Deputy Registrar (Trade Union) by office Memo No. 5/4.TUR, dated 26 May, 1987, asked Sri Sunit Kumar Ghosh, General Secretary, O.N.G.C Workmen's Association of P45, Taratolla Road, Calcutta, to appear before the Registrar of Trade Unions, West Bengal, for a hearing on 1 June, 1987 at 11.30 A.M with all relevant papers. Similarly, Shyamal Kanti Das representing O.N.G.C Workmen's Association having his office at 50, Chowringhee Road, Calcutta, was also informed to appear at 2.30 P.M on the said date. It further appears that Sri Sunit Kumar Ghosh appeared before the Registrar of Trade Unions, West Bengal, but could not produce the notice in connection with the annual general meeting of the union held on 10 July, 1986, and the connected minutes book. He is alleged to have prayed for time by 2 June, 1980 but did not appear on 2 June, 1986 with the notice and the minutes book. The Registrar of Trade Unions heard Sri Shyamal Kanti Das in the afternoon session and decided by examination of the papers and documents that the annual general meeting held by the O.N.G.C Workmen's Association on 10 July, 1986 and the election to the executive on 4 July, 1986 did not have the support of the rules and constitution of the union as certified by the; Registrar of Trade Unions, West Bengal, on 8 July, 1972. The said election of the executive on 4 July, 1986 as well as holding of the annual general meeting on 10 July, 1986 were found to be irregular, and not valid. It was further found by the Registrar of Trade Unions, West Bengal, that the annual general meeting of the executive body raised from 12 to 20 in numbers was also considered irregular and the extraordinary general meeting of the requisitionists held on 4 March, 1987, and the election to the executive body held in accordance with the provisions of the certified rules, were found to be regular. The Registrar conclusively decided that the executive body elected on 4 March, 1987 with Sri B.N Ghosh as president and Sri Shyamal Kanti Das as secretary and 10 others were properly elected and as such the said body could be considered to be the legally constituted body to represent the O.N.G.C Workmen's Association bearing registration No. 10641. The said decision of the Registrar of Trade Unions on 4 June, 1987 is challenged in the present writ petition. A copy of the said decision is annexure D to the present writ application as mentioned above. Pursuant to the said decision of the Registrar of Trade Unions, the Joint Director (I.R), O.N.G.C, having his office at 41, Chowringhee Road, Calcutta, informed Sri Sunit Kumar Ghosh that the body of which he is the general secretary can no longer be treated as the legally representative body of O.N.G.C Workmen's Association and the privileges and facilities conferred on him as per the provisions of the “code of discipline” as recognised body will not be admissible with the executive body. The said order was communicated by letter, dated 8 June, 1987, which is annexure F as indicated above. The said in pugned order is also challenged in the present writ application.

3. Sri Somnath Chatterjee, the learned counsel appealing on behalf of the writ petitioners in the Present writ petition, viz., O.N.G.C workmen's Association represented by Sri Sunit Kumar Ghosh and others has made threefold submissions. First, he argued that the present petitioners who were parties to the earlier??? writ petition being C.O No. 4329 (W) of 1987 are not bound by the order of this Court made on 8 May, 1987, inasmuch as the said writ petition was disposed of without any notice to the private respondents including the persons who are moving the present writ petition. They were not given any opportunity of hearing. Any order passed by this Court upon the earlier writ petition and the particular order, dated 8 May, 1987, is not binding upon the present writ petitioners. Secondly, he has argued that the Registrar of Trade Unions has no jurisdiction to decide any question as to the legality, validity and propriety of the election of any trade union. He has laid much emphasis upon this scope of Ss. 8 and 28 of Indian Trade Unions Act. Section 8 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926, runs as follows:

“8 Registration.— The Registrar, on being satisfied with the trade union as complete 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 a form as may be prescribed the particulars relating to the trade union contained in the statement accompanying the application for registration.”

Section 28 of the said Act runs as follows:

“28(1) There shall be sent annually to the Registrar on or before such date as may be prescribed, a general statement, added in the prescribed manner, of all receipts and expenditures of every registered trade union during the year ending on the 31st day of (December) next preceding such prescribed date, and all the assessments and liabilities of the trade unions existing on such 31st day of (December). The statement shall be prepared in such form and shall comprise such particulars as may be prescribed.

(2) Together with the general statement there shall be sent to the Registrar a statement showing all changes of (office-bearers) made by the trade union during the years to which the general statement refers together with policy with copy of the rules of the trade union corrected up to date of despatch thereof to the Registrar.

(3) A copy of every alteration made in the rules of a registered trade union shall be sent to the Registrar within 15 (fifteen) days of the making of the alteration.

(4) For the purpose of examining the documents referred to in Sub-secs. (1), (2) and (3), the Registrar, or any officer authorised by him, by general or special order, may at all reasonable times inspect the certificate of registration, account books, registers, and other documents, relating to a trade union at its registered office or may require their production at such place as he may specify in its behalf, but no such place shall be at a distance of more than ten miles from the registered office of a trade union.”

Sri Chatterjee has strongly argued that Ss. 8 and 28 do not confer any jurisdiction upon the Registrar of Trade Unions to decide any question relating as to the legality and validity of any election of a trade union. The Registrar's function is not quasi-judicial. It is merely administrative. He has relied upon a decision in North-Eastern Railway Mazdoor Union v. Registrar of Trade Unions, Kanpur [1969 L. & I.C 209]. The attention of this Court is drawn to the said decision indicating, inter alia, that under S. 8 read with S. 28 of the Trade Unions Act, the Registrar under the Act has only an administrative duty to record changes in office-bearers of a trade union. Where conflicting forms under regulation 17 A of the uttar Pradesh Trade Union Regulations mentioning different sets of office-bearers are filed by the rival groups in a trade union, the Registrar has no power to hold a quasi-judicial inquiry. The Act does not provide any adjudication of a dispute between rival groups of a trade union. Though the Registrar is invested with quasi-judicial powers in registering trade unions or in their cancellations, he has only an administrative duty to record changes in office-bearers, under S. 8 read with S. 28.

4. Sri Chatterjee has also laid emphasis by pointing out the decision in North-Eastern Railway Mazdoor Union v. Registrar of Trade Unions, Kanpur [1969 L. & I.C 209] (vide supra), that in exercising the administrative functions, the Registrar can undertake a reasonable inquiry to discover whether the changes to be recorded conformed to the actual facts and rules. The implied power of the Registrar to ascertain actual facts from the parties where there appears to be some conflict between the two persons given in the two forms filed by the two rival groups cannot convert his inquiry into a quasi-judicial proceeding in which each side had the right to lead evidence and cross-examination of witnesses. Although he can do it only to hold a summary inquiry for his own satisfaction the proper course for him in case of conflicting claims is to refer the parties to civil Court. Sri Chatterjee has also referred to another decision in North-Eastern Railway Employees' Union, Gorakhpur v. Registrar of Trade Unions, Uttar Pradesh, Kanpur [1975 L. & I.C 860]. It was held in the said decision that the Registrar of Trade Unions while exercising these powers under S. 28(3) does not discharge any quasi-judicial function. He discharges an administrative function. No parties are entitled to lead evidence or to cross-examine witnesses and no elaborate inquiry is required to be held. The Registrar is free to hold a summary inquiry to satisfy himself for effecting the changes. The Registrar is required to satisfy himself before making any change that the changes in the office-bearers were made in accordance with the rules of the union but neither the Act nor the regulations framed thereunder required the Registrar to hold any detailed inquiry, record evidence or to decide the claims of the rival groups of trade unions. Regulation 17-A does not enlarge the scope of the inquiry. The order of Registrar effecting changes in the office-bearers cannot be challenged on the ground that the petitioners were not given effective opportunity to lead evidence to prove that the office-bearers alleged to have been elected at the particular meeting were not registered according to the Registrar's Rules of the Trade Unions. The earlier decision in North-Eastern Railway Mazdoor Union v. Registrar of Trade Unions, Kanpur [1969 L. & I.C 239] (vide supra), was relied upon. Sri Somnath Chatterjee argued further that the Registrar of Trade Unions has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute and to pass any quasi-judicial order nor this Court can confer jurisdiction upon the Registrar of Trade Unions by any order as made in the earlier writ petition without serving notice to the present petitioners who are the respondents therein. Besides, the Registrar of Trade Unions in passing the impugned order made a mockery of justice. There is no hearing of the parties in the presence of all concerned. A novel procedure which is unknown to all jurisprudence was followed, viz., that one party has been heard at 11.30 A.M and the other party has been heard behind its back at 2.30 P.M The acts done and/or caused to have been done by the Registrar of Trade Unions are unwarranted and uncalled for. He is alleged to have drawn an adverse inference for non-production of the documents whereas Sri Sunit Kumar Ghosh was not allowed to know as to what documents he was supposed to file and what inquiry the Registrar of Trade Unions is going to hold. The opportunity to produce the documents by the next day was insufficient and an ex parte decision has been taken behind the back of Sri Sunit Kumar Ghosh by holding an adverse inference. According to Sri Chatterjee, there is violation of the principles of natural justice. The attention of this Court was also drawn to De-Smith on Judicial Review (4th Edn.) at pages 200, 201 and 203. It appears therefrom that a situation may well arise in which not only an individual who is directly affected will have an implied right to be heard but also organisations which are representative of that individual and other persons whose interests are directly affected by the matter in issue. What the audi alteram partem rule guarantess is an adequate opportunity to appear and be heard. The rule does not guarantee that the hearing or inspection shall never proceed or that action shall never have been taken to a present detriment unless they were entitled to appear, and do in fact appear. What is the form of hearing? The word “hearing” has generally been used in a broad sense to include the making of written representation. When we have spoken of an opportunity or a right to be heard we have not necessarily made the opportunity or right to be heard orally. It must be pointed out, however, that when the words “hearing” or “opportunity” to be “heard” are used in legislation, it always denotes a hearing at which oral submissions and evidence may be tendered. Statutory Tribunals are often required to give oral hearings only when so requested by interested party, they are sometime empowered to discharge the issues on the basis of written submissions, although a hearing has been requested, they are occasionally empowered to order an oral hearing although none has been requested. What is tae conduct of hearing? A party must have an adequate opportunity of knowing the case he has to meet, of answering each and put his own case. What is the duty of adequate disclosure, the prejudicial allegations are to be made against him, he must normally, as we have seen, be given particulars of them before the hearing so that he can prepare his answers. In order to protect his interest he must also be enabled to controvert, correct or comment on other evidence or information that may be relevant to the decision. A base material is available before the hearing, the right course will show up to give an advance notification, but it cannot be said that there is a hard and fast rule on this matter, and sometimes natural justice will be held to be satisfied if the material is divulged at the hearing, it may have to be adjourned, if he cannot fairly be expected to make his reply without kind for consideration. Sri Chatterjee concluded by submitting that the impugned order by the Registrar of Trade Unions is inherently defective. Neither he has jurisdiction to decide in the manner he has done nor he has complied with substantial justice by not giving an opportunity of hearing and by not appreciating the materials produced before him. Sri Chatterjee submitted that his clients are ready to prove their majority in any forum as may be decided by this Hon'ble Court.

5. Sri Kashi Kanta Moitra with Sri Biman Basu, the learned counsel, appeared for the respondents 8 to 12 (Shyamal Kanti Das and others). It was argued that in the previous writ petition, no order was made by the Court prejudicially affecting the interest of the present writ petitioners. The Registrar of Trade unions was directed to consider the legality and validity of the rival claims to represent the union and the Registrar was asked to pass an order by giving opportunities of hearing to both the groups in accordance with the law. Once Sri Sunit Kumar Ghosh and his group participated in the procedings before the Registrar of Trade Unions, they cannot be allowed to come around to challenge the proceedings itself as a decision has been made against them. This writ Court should not entertain the present contentions raised by the present writ petitioners. It was further argued that Registrar of Trade Unions has full jurisdiction to inquire about the legality of the new election of the office-bearers of union 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 support of such contentions the decision of Mukund Ram Tanti v. Registrar of Trade Unions, Bihar [A.I.R 1962 Pat. 338], has been cited. The Division Bench decided that 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 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 S. 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 S. 28 of the Act, the officers of the trade union have to be prosecuted with previous sanction of the Registrar under the Act. The said decision further holds that 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 are legally elected so as to be recorded in register maintained for the purpose and to be bound for compliance of the provisions of the Act. In other words, the Registrar has fall jurisdiction to inquire 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. Another decision in North-Eastern Railway Employees' Union, Gorakhapur v. Registrar of Trade Unions, Uttar Pradesh, Kanpur [1975 L. & I.C 860] (vide supra), has been referred to. Two rival groups sending separate returns, Registrar's duties and functions in such case, whether he should conduct an inquiry and whether such inquiry to be summary or elaborate and whether he discharges quasi-judicial function. It was decided that the Registrar of Trade Unions while exercising his powers under S. 28(3) of the Act does not discharge any quasi-judicial function. No party is entitled to lead evidence or to cross-examine witnesses and no elaborate inquiries are required to be held and, the Registrar is free to hold a summary inquiry to satisfy himself for effecting the changes. The Registrar was not holding a quasi-judicial inquiry, he was discharging an administrative function; he was not required to examine witnesses or to allow opportunity for cross-examination. However, the inquiry must be held in a fair and impartial manner. In the same light, another decision was cited being in Murugesan v. Union Territory of Pondichery [1976 — II L.L.J 435]. With much emphasis, it was argued that there is no irregularity and illegality in the decision of the Registrar of Trade Unions and the present writ petition is misconceived and is liable to be rejected.

6. Sri Guha and Sri Sunil Chattarjee, the learned counsel, appeared for respondent 5, Oil and Natural Gas Commission. They however, expressed the anxiety of the employer. There is nothing special for them to support either of the groups. All that the employer desires is that there should not be any disturbance to work due to any union rivalry and the important assignment of Oil and Natural Gas Commission may not be disturbed and the programme schedule of work should not hamper.

7. The learned Government Pleader appeared for the State of West Bengal and with all his fairness he wanted to place on records all the papers available with the Registrar of Trade Unions. However, it was submitted that if there is any dispute there may be a fresh election or any person may be engaged as a special officer to verify the strength of the majority amongst the rival parties to ascertain who are entitled to run the office in the manner as claimed by the respective parties.

8. Having heard the learned counsel of the aforementioned respective parties and considering the materials on record and looking at the principle of law it appears to this Court that the real scope of Ss. 8 and 28 of the Trade Unions Act has got to be appreciated in order to ascertain the power and the jurisdiction of the Registrar of Trade Unions to resolve the dispute as raised in the instant case. No doubt that the previous writ petition being C.O No. 4392 (W) of 1987 was disposed of by this Court by an order, dated 8 May, 1987, holding, inter alia, that there is union rivalry and the appropriate authority is the Registrar of Trade Unions who has the jurisdiction to inquire about the legality of the election of the new office-bearers of the Trade Union and the Registrar of Trade Unions who was in seisin of the matter was directed to adjudicate the grievances by giving opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned and to pass a speaking and reasoned order, without giving notice to Sri Sunit Kumar Ghosh and others, the private respondents thereof who are the present writ petitioners. Yet, the said order, dated 8 May, 1987, is not prejudicial to the interest of the present writ petitioners inasmuch as the Registrar of Trade Unions was directed to give an opportunity of hearing to them. While they received notice from the Registrar of Trade Unions they appeared before the Registrar of Trade Unions and asked for time. Had they been really aggrieved by the order, dated 8 May, 1987, they should have filed an application before this Court to recall and/or review the order passed by this Court on 8 May, 1987. It will not be fair on their part to challenge that the order passed on 8 May, 1987 is in any way bad in law or that the same is prejudicial towards the interest and/or under the subsequent changed circumstances, the same is not binding on them. The question arises as to what is the power and jurisdiction of the Registrar of Trade Unions to adjudicate the grievances of the rival parties. True, the Registrar has power to ascertain who are the elected office-bearers to register their names within the scope and ambit of Ss. 8 and 28 of the Trade Unions Act. The scope of inquiry to be held within the scope of such provision of law is very much limited. Any order passed by him must be administrative in nature. He is not deemed to be a quasi-judicial authority to decide any disputed question of fact or law. He has no authority to ask any of the parties to lead evidences and to give opportunity to the other party to cross-examine any witness. Under this concept of a limited administrative inquiry, the dispute as raised by the rival parties cannot be set at rest. It is not appreciated that this Court has been clothed with any higher jurisdiction to decide the dispute between the rival office-bearers of the unions than what has been conferred upon the Registrar of the Trade Unions under Ss. 8 and 28 of the Trade Unions Act itself. This Court by the previous order had only observed that whatever jurisdiction the Registrar had under Ss. 8 and 28 of the Act the same could be exercised. Nothing more was conferred upon the Registrar of Trade Unions nor he was made a persona designata to decide any dispute as required to be resolved in the proper perspective.

9. In my opinion, by construing the provisions of Ss. 8 and 28 of the Trade Unions Act and looking to the reported decisions cited from the Bar supporting the cases of the respective parties, it is beyond any doubt that the Registrar of Trade Unions has no quasi-judicial authority to hold any inquiry by allowing parties to examine witnesses, and to allow the party to cross-examine such witnesses and to decide the dispute as to who are the real office-bearers.

10. As to the nature of administrative inquiry held in the instant case it is found that there are certain obvious irregularities. The Registrar has not specifically given any notice to the rival parties to give them an idea as to the nature of inquiry he was going to hold. He did not ask the rival parties to make written statements as to the claims and contentions so as to enable the Registrar to appreciate the nature of the dispute and to give opportunities to the rival claimants to understand each other's specific stand in order to enable them to assist the Registrar in their own way to pass a required administrative order within the scope of Ss. 8 and 28 of the Trade Unions Act. A real inquiry is required and any show of inquiry does not serve the purpose. Under any jurisprudence an inquiry must be held in the presence of both parties to make claims and counter claims and to raise contentions and counter-contentions. Anything done behind one's back is likely to raise suspicions and doubts. Doubts and suspicions lead to shake confidence and anything bereft of confidence is a negation of solving the problem. That loses the grip and the result is “chaos and confusion.” In the instant case, it is not appreciated why the Registrar of Trade Unions of West Bengal, the respondent 2, has followed a short-cut process to solve the problem. It is not appreciated as to why he has not asked both the parties to submit statements of their respective claims and contentions. He ought to have given sufficient notice to both the parties as to the scope of inquiry and the specific issues to be solved within the scope of Ss. 8 and 28 of the Trade Unions Act. He ought to have heard the representations of both the parties in the presence of all. Justice demands that it should be done and shown to be done. Any secret hearing, any ex parte hearing, any hearing behind one's back, invites inevitably comments of partiality, unfairness and bias. These are no exceptions in the present case also. I have given all ray anxious considerations to look in between the lines of the impugned order of the Registrar. I hold that the findings in the impugned order are bereft of all merits and proper appreciation of facts and law. There cannot be any adverse inference for non-production of the document to uphold the claim of the other party. Only because relevant papers could not be filed by Sunit Kumar Ghosh on the next adjourned day, the conclusion drawn by the Registrar, is not properly appreciated by this Court. The impugned order appears to be inherently defective in form, and on merit. Accordingly, the impugned orders are quashed and/or set aside. Now by quashing and/or setting aside the impugned order of the Registrar the problem will not be set at rest. It has to be decided as to who are the real office-bearers of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Workmen's Association bearing registration No. 10641. Both the rival groups are claiming that they are the real office-bearers. Such a dispute has got to be decided by admitting evidence and examining documents and by considering related and relevant materials. This Court cannot go into such a disputed question of facts. The Registrar of Trade Unions under Ss. 8 and 28 of the Trade Unions Act is not a quasi-judicial authority to look into the evidence. The ultimate forum is an ordinary civil Court where the parties can initiate proceedings for declaration of rights and to obtain consequential reliefs in accordance with the law. Otherwise for obtaining quick remedies there should be a fresh election as per rules and regulations provided in the memorandum and articles of association. Since a comprehensive civil suit will delay the solution of the problem, a deadlock will be created for running the union vis-a-vis there will be a chaos in running the union work and the interest of everybody will suffer. Both the management and the employees will languish with all uncertainties. The working atmosphere will be disturbed. The industrial peace will be in jeopardy and in the absence of quick disposal of the dispute the parties will be in despair. Considering all the aspects and for the foregoing reasons the Registrar of Trade Unions is appointed as a Special Officer and/or is conferred with such rights to conduct the election afresh of the office-bearers of Oil and Natural Gas Commission Workmen's Association bearing registration No. 10641 within two months from the date of communication of the order by verifying the voters' list and by asking the intending parties to file the nomination papers and to hold the election by secret ballots and to declare the result of the election according to law and thereafter record the names of the persons so elected under Ss. 8 and 28 of the Trade Unions Act. This writ petition is thus disposed of without any order as to costs. Liberty to mention if the situation so requires.