Unit Prasad Singh v. State of Jharkhand 2007 (1) JCR 194 Jhr

UNIT PRASAD SINGH V. STATE OF JHARKHAND

What is the power and jurisdiction of the Registrar of Trade Unions to adjudicate the grievances of the rival parties?

The Registrar of Trade Unions does not have the authority to determine the legality or propriety of an election or to order a fresh election. Disputes regarding the legitimacy of office bearers in a Trade Union should be resolved through civil suits in a court of competent jurisdiction, as the Trade Unions Act does not grant the Registrar jurisdiction for such matters.

Unit Prasad Singh was elected as General Secretary in a union election in October 2000.
Alleging illegal practices in the 2003 election, he reported irregularities to the Registrar of Trade Unions.
The Assistant Labour Commissioner was ordered to conduct an inquiry into the alleged election irregularities.
After a Single Judge directed Unit Prasad Singh to approach the Registrar with his grievances, the Registrar declared the 2003 election invalid and ordered a fresh one in November 2005.
Respondent No. 4, Koyla Ispat Mazdoor Panchyat, challenged the Registrar’s order through a writ petition.
In June 2006, the court set aside the Registrar’s order, stating that the Registrar lacked jurisdiction to decide election legality and order a fresh election.
Unit Prasad Singh appealed this decision.

The Single Judge, in an order dated June 28, 2006, set aside the Registrar’s order, ruling that the Registrar lacked jurisdiction to determine the legality and propriety of any election and to direct a fresh election.
The appellant cited a previous case (Mukund Ram Tanti v. Registrar of Trade Unions and Ors., 1963 (1) LLJ 60) to support the validity of the Registrar’s order.
In response, the respondents argued that the Single Judge’s order was justified.
The judgment highlights that the previous case (Mukund Ram Tanti) did not support the appellant’s position, as it did not grant the Registrar authority to decide the legality of an election or to order a fresh election.
It emphasizes that the Trade Unions Act, 1926, lacks provisions for adjudicating such disputes, and such disputes should be resolved through civil suits in the appropriate court.
The judgment cites decisions from the Patna and Calcutta High Courts, which state that the Registrar has limited administrative powers and cannot make quasi-judicial decisions.
It notes that civil proceedings had already been initiated by two individuals challenging the election in a civil court in Dhanbad, and these proceedings were ongoing.
Consequently, the court found no error in the Single Judge’s order and dismissed the appeal without costs