Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, members of Respondent No.2 Trade Union, challenged the order dated 05/02/2020 of the Registrar of Trade Unions (Respondent No.1) rejecting their application for a consent certificate under Section 28-1A of the Trade Union Act, 1926. The petitioners alleged that the Managing Committee of the union did not declare the election programme as per the constitution, that elections were purportedly held on 10/03/2019 under an amended constitution that was approved only on 28/03/2019, and that no notice was served on members. They claimed fraud and sought an inquiry under Regulation 23 of the Bombay Trade Unions Regulations, 1927. The Registrar rejected the application on the ground that the petitioners failed to produce any documentary evidence to support their allegations. The High Court held that the Registrar's power under Section 28-1A is quasi-judicial and requires application of mind; the Registrar is not bound to hold an inquiry under Regulation 23 in every case. The court found that the petitioners' allegations were vague and unsupported by prima facie evidence, and the Registrar's order was neither arbitrary nor perverse. The petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged.
Headnote
A) Trade Union Law - Consent Certificate - Section 28-1A Trade Union Act, 1926 - Registrar's Power - The Registrar's power to grant consent certificate under Section 28-1A is quasi-judicial and requires application of mind; the Registrar must consider whether there is a prima facie case for raising a dispute before the Industrial Court. Mere allegations of fraud without supporting evidence do not warrant grant of consent. (Paras 5-10)
B) Trade Union Law - Inquiry - Regulation 23 Bombay Trade Unions Regulations, 1927 - Mandatory or Discretionary - Regulation 23 empowers the Registrar to hold an inquiry but does not mandate it in every case; the Registrar may reject an application without inquiry if the application does not disclose a prima facie case. (Paras 11-14)
C) Trade Union Law - Election Dispute - Jurisdiction of Industrial Court - Section 28-1A Trade Union Act, 1926 - The Industrial Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes relating to trade union elections only if the Registrar grants a consent certificate; the Registrar acts as a filter to prevent frivolous disputes. (Paras 5-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Registrar of Trade Unions was justified in rejecting the application for consent certificate under Section 28-1A of the Trade Union Act, 1926, and whether the Registrar is bound to hold an inquiry under Regulation 23 of the Bombay Trade Unions Regulations, 1927 before rejecting such application.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Registrar's power under Section 28-1A of Trade Union Act
- 1926 is quasi-judicial
- requires application of mind
- consent certificate not to be issued mechanically
- mere allegations of fraud without prima facie evidence do not warrant consent
- Regulation 23 of Bombay Trade Unions Regulations
- 1927 provides for inquiry but not mandatory in all cases
Case Details
2020 LawText (BOM) (12) 36
WRIT PETITION (STAMP) NO. 93407 OF 2020
Mr. Rakesh Sawant a/w. Shamiana H. for the Petitioners, Mr. P.M. Palshikar i/b. Kanhaiya S. Yadav for Respondent No.2, Mrs. M.S. Bane, AGP for the State
Ravindra Valmik Konkar and Ors.
The Registrar of Trade Unions and Anr.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of the Registrar of Trade Unions rejecting application for consent certificate under Section 28-1A of the Trade Union Act, 1926.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing of the Registrar's order dated 05/02/2020 and direction to issue consent certificate or hold inquiry under Regulation 23.
Filing Reason
Petitioners alleged that the Managing Committee of Respondent No.2 Trade Union did not hold elections as per constitution, conducted sham elections on 10/03/2019 under an amended constitution approved later, and that no notice was given to members.
Previous Decisions
Registrar of Trade Unions rejected the application for consent certificate on 05/02/2020.
Issues
Whether the Registrar of Trade Unions was justified in rejecting the application for consent certificate under Section 28-1A of the Trade Union Act, 1926.
Whether the Registrar is bound to hold an inquiry under Regulation 23 of the Bombay Trade Unions Regulations, 1927 before rejecting such application.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the Registrar failed to apply mind and mechanically rejected the application; that the Registrar ought to have held an inquiry under Regulation 23 before rejecting the application.
Respondent No.2 argued that the petitioners failed to produce any documentary evidence to support their allegations; that the Registrar's order was justified and not arbitrary.
Ratio Decidendi
The Registrar's power under Section 28-1A of the Trade Union Act, 1926 is quasi-judicial and requires application of mind. The Registrar is not bound to hold an inquiry under Regulation 23 of the Bombay Trade Unions Regulations, 1927 in every case. Mere allegations of fraud without prima facie evidence do not warrant grant of consent certificate.
Judgment Excerpts
The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 05/02/2020 whereby Respondent No.1 has rejected an application for issuance of consent certificate for raising a dispute before the Industrial Court in respect of elections of the office bearers to the Managing Committee of Respondent No.2-Trade Union.
The Registrar's power under Section 28-1A is quasi-judicial and requires application of mind; the Registrar must consider whether there is a prima facie case for raising a dispute before the Industrial Court.
Procedural History
Petitioners filed an application before the Registrar of Trade Unions seeking consent certificate under Section 28-1A of the Trade Union Act, 1926 and inquiry under Regulation 23 of the Bombay Trade Unions Regulations, 1927. The Registrar rejected the application on 05/02/2020. Petitioners filed the present writ petition challenging that order. The petition was heard and reserved on 28/10/2020 and judgment pronounced on 09/12/2020.
Acts & Sections
- Trade Union Act, 1926: Section 28-1A
- Bombay Trade Unions Regulations, 1927: Regulation 23
