Srivastava, J.:— The petitioners who claim to be the office-bearers of the Cacher Paper Project Workers and Employees Union (hereinafter referred as the union) pray for direction to the respondents to make over charge of the union to petitioners 1 and 4 and to respondents 3 and 4 not to operate the bank account of the union.
2. The petitioner's case was that the petitioners who are employees along with other workers of the Hindustan Paper Corporation, Ltd. (hereinafter referred as the corporation), in its Cacher Paper Mills, Panchgram (hereinafter referred as the mill) had formed the union duly registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, (hereinafter referred as the Act.) The office-bearers of the union held offic for a period of one year. Respondents 3 and 4 were president and secretary of the executive committee of the union for the previous year 1989. A members' requisitioned meeting was held on 19 February, 1990, when a new executive committee was constituted with the petitioners as office-bearers, petitioner 1 being the president and petitioner 4 its general secretary. The management of the corporation was informed of the formation of the new executive committee by letter, dated 23 February, 1990. The union has S.B Account No. 2183 with the Central Bank of India, Panchgram Branch. After the formation of the new committee, respondent 4 had tried to operate the said account which was not correct. The petitioners and four members of the union selected on 19 February, 1990, informed the Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Panchgram Branch, not to allow operation of the bank account. Respondents 3 and 4 had not made over charge to the petitioners. Hence the petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, for the aforesaid reliefs was filed on 17 March, 1990.
3. The respondents have resisted the petition and their contention was that the petitioners have no authority to represent the union. The petitioners were not president and general secretary of the union. During the pendency of this petition elections were held on 30 April, 1990 and the respondents were elected office-bearers of the union. It was further stated that the petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India was not maintainable in respect of dispute between office-bearers of the union and further that in the disputed facts relating to the elections of office-bearers of the union and the like, the remedy was by civil suit.
4. We have heard Sri M.A Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri B.K Das, learned counsel for the respondents, considered the submissions and the materials on record.
5. Sri B.K Das, learned counsel for the respondents, has contended that the petition is in substance about dispute between rival office-bearers of the union and hence the jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India could not be invoked.
6. Sri M.A Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand has strenuously refuted that there was any dispute and has urged that the relief sought was for direction to the respondent to hand over charge and to allow the petitioners to operate the bank account on behalf of the union. The petitioners' submission was that respondents 3 and 4 who were admittedly the office-bearers for the year 1989, had ceased to be office-bearers after a section of members of the union had opted for merger in a meeting on 14 December, 1989 with Bhartiya Pulp, Paper and Straw Board Mazdoor Sangh (hereinafter referred as the sangh) and the Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh (hereinafter referred as the mazdoor sangh) and that at a requisitioned meeting on 19 February, 1990, the petitioners were selected office-bearers. Respondents 3 and 4 have disputed the contentions. Their version was that there was no merger with the sangh, that a resolution for affiliation of the union with sangh was adopted but the terms not being acceptable the resolution was recalled or cancelled. Respondents 3 and 4 had never ceased to be office-bearers. The requisitioned meeting was illegal that in April at a fresh election held the respondents were reelected office-bearers. The petitioners in the rejoinder-affidavit assail the union election of April 1990 as fraudulent and illegal.
7. On careful consideration of the above facts, and submissions for the parties, we think that, howsoever the reliefs may be worded would not make any material difference to the basic fact that the dispute was between rival office-bearers of the union. Even though Union of India and the corporation were made respondents 1 and 7 there should be no doubt that a dispute between the office-bearers of the union is sought to be adjudicated. The petitioners basically claimed relief against respondents 3 and 4, the rival office bearers. The Union of India and the corporation had hardly anything to do with the union and the dispute as to who were the office-bearers.
8. The dispute being of private nature between the office-bearers of the union, direction to the respondents sought, in effect shall be direction to respondents 3 and 4 who also claim to be the office-bearers of the union.
9. Sri B.K Das, learned counsel for the respondents, has also submitted that in case of dispute between the office-bearers of union, the matter should be taken up by the Registrar of Trade Unions under S. 28 of the Act the provisions of S. 28 said above are for record of the office-bearers, etc., of a union and the Registrar has to be intimated about change of office-bearers and while for the purpose, Registrar may make inquiries to enable him maintain proper record of change, etc. Registrar has no jurisdiction to settle any dispute, between rival office-bearers. Sri B.K Das, learned counsel for the respondent, cited Sanjiva Reddy v. Registrar of Trade Unions [1969—I L.L.J 11], where the Court held that the Registrar could make necessary inquiry into the rival claims of the office-bearers of the union and reach his own conclusion while it may be that the Registrar may make inquiries to reach his own conclusion for the purpose of maintaining the record of the office-bearers of the union, we think that no reference can be made to him for adjudication of the dispute relating to rival claim by office-bearers of the union. It was held in Sanjiva Reddy case (vide supra), that the only proper remedy was by civil suit and that the writ jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution was not the proper remedy.
10. Sri B.K Das, learned counsel for the respondents, also cited North-Eastern Railway Mazdoor Union v. Registrar of Trade Unions [1969 L.& I.C 209], where it was held that the Registrar has no power to hold enquiry in conflicting rival claims of the office-bearers of the trade unions and that where the Registrar exercises his power under S. 28 of the Trade Unions Act no writ application could lie against making of such record by the Registrar.
11. In the present case no such relief or direction has been sought against the Registrar of Trade Unions, who has not even been made party in this petition.
12. Besides as said before in the dispute between the rival office-bearers of the union, the Registrar of Trade Unions has no authority or power under S. 28 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926, to decide the dispute, even though he has power to make his enquiries and come to his own conclusion in the matter for the purposes of maintenance of record of office-bearers of the union.
13. We, therefore, think that the dispute being related to rival claims of office-bearers of the union, a private dispute, the writ jurisdiction of the Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is not available and cannot be invoked.
14. It may also be noted that contentions between the parties raise several disputed questions of fact which cannot, in our opinion, be properly determined in this petition, for example whether any decision for merger had been taken or that it was merely a decision for affiliation, whether it was revoked, how many members had conducted the meeting to take the said decision for so-called merger, whether the members who had asked for requisition meeting, were competent to do so, whether the office-bearers could be selected after S. 8 of the constitution of the union had been amended earlier in 1987 and the word “selection” was omitted, whether the election held on 30 April, 1990 was in order and several other questions of fact which are all matters of dispute between the parties. In our opinion, to resolve such disputed questions of fact between the parties, the writ jurisdiction of this Court is not the appropriate remedy. The proper remedy in such disputes which can be decided only on evidence should be civil suit where the parties may adduce their evidence, on consideration of which the Court may decide the dispute. We hold accordingly.
15. However, if the petitioners' contention be considered on merit, its basis was that about 107 members of the union on 14 December, 1989 had held a meeting where a decision was taken to merge with the sangh and the mazdoor sangh, with the result that respondents 3 and 4 who had been the president and general secretary of the union in the year 1989, had ceased to be members of the union, and thereafter at the requisitioned meeting on 19 February, 1990 the new executive committee and the office-bearers were selected according to the constitution, by the union and during the pendency of this petition to this Court thereafter the management without any authority had purported to call special general meeting in April 1990, at which the respondents were stated to have been duly elected at an election which was illegal. The contention on behalf of the respondents was that at the meeting on 14 December, 1989, the decision taken was to affiliate the union with the sangh and the mazdoor sangh but after four days it was found that the decision taken could not be implemented and hence it was cancelled. The office-bearers of the union had continued and there was no question of any merger of the union within the sangh and the mazdoor sangh that the so-called requisitioned meeting on 19 February, 1990 was, therefore, illegal. The petitioners have no right to maintain the petition. Subsequently at the special general meeting held in April 1990, the management as in earlier years had only appointed the returning officer to hold the election which was duly held and was valid.
16. It may thus be seen that the petitioners' entire case rested on the contention that there was merger of part of the memebership with the sangh and the mazdoor sangh, a fact denied by the respondents.
17. Annexure IX with the counter-affidavit is the resolution adopted at the meeting held on 14 December, 1989. It reads as under:
Resolution adapted in the Executive Committee Meeting of Cacher Paper Project Workers and Employees Union held at Panchgram on 14 December, 1989 under the presidentship of Sri Sushanta Ghosh.
Resolution 1:
“Resolved unanimously that the Cacher Paper Project Workers and Employees Union shall be affiliated to the Bhartiya Pulp, Paper and Straw Board Mazdoor Sangh as well as the Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh with immediate effect.”
[emphasis supplied.]
Resolution 2:
“Resolved unanimously that the Cacher Paper Project Workers and Employees Union shall abide by the constitution of the Bhartiya Pulp, Paper and Straw Board of Mazdoor Sangh as well as the Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh. Resolved further that the Cachar Paper Project Workers and Employees Union shall adhere to the rules and regulations, principle, directions, programmes, activities as set by the Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh or its Zonal/State/Distriet Body from time to time.”
Resolution 3:
“Resolved unanimously that the General Secretary of the Cacher Paper Project Workers and Employees Union shall be authorised to take necessary steps to get the affiliation from the Bhartiya Pulp, Paper and Straw Board Mazdoor Sangh as well as Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh.”
107 members were stated to have participated in the said meeting.
18. The above resolution itself shows that the decision was to affiliate with the sangh which clearly means that the union had retained its identity and continued to exist as such. The submission for the petitioners that there was merger of the union with the sangh was clearly not correct. We have not found anything in the constitution of the union to show that any merger as urged was permissible or what the expression merger could mean. In view of the submission made for the petitioners, “merger meant that part of the union had become integral part of the sangh and had lost its identity as a body, that is that the identity of the union was totally or completely lost. “Merger” in Chambers' 20th Century Dictionary (New Edition 1983) means “to dip or plunge, to cause to be swallowed up or absorbed in something greater to cause, to coalesce, combine or amalgamate.” It may, therefore, be clear that the petitioners' contention was that the part of the union had amalgamated with or was absorbed by the sangh. The resolution, dated 14 December, 1989, does not bear out the contention. The decision was to affiliate with the sangh which was distinctly a very different proposition. “Affiliation” means “to ‘adopt’ or to attach as a member or ‘branch’ to become closely connected or to associate, to fraternise.”
19. The resolution adopted on 14 December, 1989 was, therefore, just to get closely connected, or associated with the “sangh” which obviously did not mean loss of identity of the “union.” We, therefore, do not accept the petitioners' contention that any merger as such had taken place, with the result that the union and its office-bearers had not lost their identity and had continued to exist as before.
20. Even that resolution, dated 14 December, 1989, was cancelled at the meeting on 18 December, 1989 by resolution annexure X which read, as under:
Resolution 1:
“It is resolved unanimously that since the terms and conditions set up by the Bhartiya Pulp, Paper and Straw Board Mazdoor sangh as well as the Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh are not acceptable as these involve change of the name of our union and amendment of certain basic clauses of our existing constitution it has been decided unanimously that resolutions 1, 2 and 3 of the executive committee meeting, dated 14 December, 1989, will not be given effect to, which, therefore, stand cancelled and abolished with effect from 18 December, 1989.
Resolution 2:
It is resolved unanimously that our union will not create and maintain any sort of relationship with the Bhartiya Pulp, Paper and Straw Board Mazdoor Sangh as well as the Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh.
The meeting ends with vote of thanks from the chair.”
21. Sri Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the subsequent resolution was “manipulation” and of no consequence. We have not found any good reason to think that there was any manipulation because there was really no need for it, the “union” having had earlier decided only to get affiliated. As said before there was no merger and hence there was no need for any fictitious manipulation in the matter.
22. In the above view of the matter there is no need to examine any other contention for the parties.
23. For the aforesaid reasons, this petition fails and is dismissed. We, however, make no order as to costs.