1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 63 of 2025 1 - South Eastern Koyla Mazdoor Congress ( Intuc) Through President Sampat Kumar Shukla S/o Late Shri R.P. Shukla Age About 63 Years R/o H. No.6 Ward No. 05 Chandia District - Umaria (Madhya Pradesh ) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Labour Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Nava Raipur District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Registrar Trade Union Chhattisgarh Indiravati Bhawan Atal Nagar Nava Raipur District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Gopal Narayan Singh (Expelled From The Post Of President And Primary Membership Of Sekmc) S/o Late Manoram Singh Aged About 54 Years Quarter No. II B/ 34 J.P. Colony Secl Police Station Korba District - Korba (Chhattisgarh ) 4 - Shri S.S. Paikra Registrar Trade Union Chhattisgarh Indiravati Bhawan Atal Nagar Nava Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Anup Majumdar, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Dr. N.K. Shukla, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Nitikesh Gupta, Advocate For State/respondent No.4 : Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer Date of Hearing : 19.08.2025 Date of Judgment : 04.09.2025 Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey CAV JUDGMENT 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s) : “10.1 Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record. 10.2 Hon'ble Court may be kindly be pleased to quash the letter dated 04/12/2024 (Annexure – P/1). 10.3 Any other relief as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court.” -2- 2) The facts of the present case are as under : (i) Mr. Sampat Kumar Shukla is president of petitioner’s Union. The Union is registered under the provisions of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and more than 15000 employees of SECL are its members. (ii) Earlier election of Union was held on 10.06.2023 and respondent No.3 was elected as President of Union, whereas Shri Sampat Kumar Shukla was Vice President of Union. The tenure of office was for three years. A meeting of member of Union was called on 10.10.2024 and in meeting of General Council decision was taken to expel respondent No.3 from post of President of South Eastern Koyla Mazdoor Congress (herein after ‘SEKMC’) and on the same day, Shri Sampat Kumar Shukla was elected as President. The Form-E was submitted before respondent No.2 on 09.10.2024 itself but it was not registered. Later on, respondent No.3 submitted Form-E on 04.11.2024 and it was accepted by respondent No.2. (iii) The petitioner has pleaded that respondent No.3 has not challenged decision of expulsion from the post of President and primary membership of Union in accordance with the provisions of Section 28-J of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (for short’ the Act of 1926’). (iv) Respondent No.3 issued a letter to Shri Sampat Kumar Shukla on 30.10.2024 wherein, he demonstrated that Shri Sampat Kumar Shukla has been expelled from the office of Vice President and Union on account of his conduct against interest of Union. (v) The petitioner also pleaded that respondent No.3 was expelled from the office of President as well as primary membership of the Union on 10.10.2024 as per decision taken in the general meeting of Union and therefore, subsequent correspondence and expulsion of Shri Sampat Kumar Shukla are bad in law and proceedings are void-ab-initio. (vi) The petitioner made a complaint in this regard before respondent No.2 3 on 07.11.2024. (vii) It is pleaded that the Registrar Trade Union cannot decide the dispute with regard to election of office bearers and declare who is the lawful officer and the matter should have been referred to the Industrial Court. 3) Mr. Majumdar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in the meeting dated 10.10.2024, respondent No.3 was expelled from the office of President of the Union and thereafter, he ceased to be the president of Union and Shri Sampat Kumar Shukla, who was Vice President of Union, was elected in his place as President. He would further submit that the Registrar had no authority to decide the dispute and accept the Form-E submitted by respondent No.3. It is argued that the Registrar either should have referred the dispute to the Industrial Court or should have directed respondent No.3 to do so. He would contend that the decision taken by respondent No.2 whereby Form-E of respondent No.3 was accepted, is in contravention to the provisions of Section 28-J of the Act of 1926. He would further contend that respondent No.4 while exercising power of Registrar Trade Union in a biased and malafide manner accepted Form-E of respondent No.3, therefore, he has been impleaded in his personal capacity. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench in the matter of P.K. Ray and another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others, passed in WPL No.136/2016, decided on 18.10.2022 which has been affirmed by the Division Bench in the matter of Gopal Narayan Singh and another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others, passed in Writ Appeal No.612 of 2022, decided on 29.11.2024 and he has also placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Madhya -4- Pradesh in the matter of Mohanlal S/o Nandramji Vs. Registrar of Trade Unions, reported in 1983 LIC 1883. 4) Dr. Shukla, learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondent No.3 would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Majumdar. He would submit that Shri Sampat Kumar Shukla had no authority to convene a meeting of General Council of the Trade Union as per Clause 12 of the bye-laws of the Trade Union. He would further submit that Shri Sampat Kumar Shukla made an attempt to collect certain persons to form a parallel General Council. He would also submit that respondent No.3 was elected as President of Trade Union for a period of three years on 10.06.2023. He would contend that respondent No.3 was initially elected as President of Trade Union in the year 2014 for a period of three years and he was re-elected as President in the year 2017 for a period of three years. He would further contend that for the period from 2020-2023, Shri Sampat Kumar Shukla was elected as Vice President and respondent No.3 was elected as President. He would also contend that Shri Sampat Kumar Shukla got retired from services of SECL in the year 2021 and therefore, he was not qualified to be nominated/elected as office bearer. Dr. Shukla, learned Senior Advocate would submit that according to bye-laws of the Trade Union, meeting of General Council can be called by the President and General Secretary. It is also provided that on requisition of 20% of members of General Council, the President has to convene a meeting within 20 days. He would submit that the Vice President and General Secretary are not authorized to convene a meeting of General Council. He would also submit that Shri Sampat Kumar Shukla was not an elected office bearer rather he was nominated by respondent No.3 and then the General Secretary. He 5 would contend that as Shri Sampat Kumar Shukla was not competent to call meeting of General Council, therefore, meeting held on 10.10.2024 has no legal sanctity. He would further contend that a meeting was convened on 04.11.2024 and respondent No.3 was elected as President of Union and consequently, Form-E was submitted on the same day before respondent No.2. He would also contend that the intimation with regard to change of office bearers has to be sent to the Registrar within the fortnight in Form-E. He would submit that respondent No.3 submitted Form-E according to the mandate of Regulation 9 of the Chhattisgarh Trade Unions Regulations, 1961 (for short ‘the Regulations of 1961’) on 04.11.2024 expelling three office bearers namely, Sampat Kumar Shukla, Ramesh Mishra and Abdul Kalam Ansari. He would further submit that Form-E submitted by answering respondent with change of office bearers of Trade Union was accepted by respondent No.2 and said order has been challenged in the instant writ petition. He would contend that respondent No.2 refused to accept Form-E submitted by the petitioner because respondent No.3 was elected as President of Trade Union in the year 2023 for a period of three years and decision with regard to expulsion of respondent no. 3 was not taken in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1926 and Regulation made thereunder. 5) Dr. Shukla, learned Senior Advocate would further submit that there was no occasion to file a case before the Industrial Tribunal according to the provisions of Section 28-J of the Act of 1926 because there was no dispute within the Trade Union about who is lawful office bearer and dispute was raised by those persons who were expelled from Trade Union. He would further submit that Shri Sampat Kumar Shukla is not a -6- primary member of Trade Union as he retired from services in the year 2021. He would contend that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner seeking his explanation for his anti-Trade Union activities and when no satisfactory reply was tendered, he was expelled from the post of Vice-president as well as membership of Trade Union. He would also contend that a very small group under the leadership of Shri Sampat Kumar Shukla unauthorizedly assembled and took decision to expel respondent No.3 contrary to the bye-laws and thereafter various complaints were made against Shri Sampat Kumar Shukla. He would argue that respondent No.2 has passed an order strictly in accordance with the provisions of law, therefore, there was no need to implead the Registrar in personal capacity. In support of his submissions, Dr. Shukla, learned Senior Advocate, has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the High Court of Patna in the matter of Mukund Ram Tanti Vs. S.I. Raza, Registrar, Trade Unions, Bihar, Patna and others, reported in AIR 1962 Patna 338. 6) Mr. Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 would support the contentions made by Dr. Shukla. He would submit that an application was moved by respondent No.3 according to the provisions of Regulation 9 of the Regulations of 1961. He would further submit that respondent No.2 exercising power conferred under the Trade Unions Act, accepted Form-E submitted by respondent No.3. He would contend that the authority concerned scrutinized material placed on record and thereafter took decision. He would lastly contend that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 7) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the 7 documents placed on record. 8) Section 28-J of the Act of 1926 reads as under : “28-J. Dispute as to officer of registered Trade Union. (1) If there is any dispute as to who is the lawful officer of a registered Trade Union, any person claiming to be such an officer or the Registrar may refer the dispute to the Industrial Court in such manner and on payment of such fee not exceeding ten rupees as may be prescribed: Provided that no fee shall be payable by the Registrar. (2) On a reference being made under sub-section (1), the Industrial Court shall, after hearing the parties to such dispute and recording such evidence as it may consider necessary, decide the dispute and declare who is the lawful officer. The decision of the Industrial Court shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court of law. (2a) The costs of and incidental to the provisions of this section shall be in the discretion of the Industrial Court and the Industrial Court shall have full power to determine by whom the whole or any part of such costs shall be paid. (2b) If any proceeding under this section the Industrial Court is, after hearing the person making the reference, satisfied that the ground on which the claim has been preferred is false or vexatious, the Court may after recording its reasons for holding such claim to be false or vexatious, make an order for the payment of costs by way of compensation which shall not be less than fifty rupees and not exceeding two hundred rupees to such person or persons, as it may specify in the order. (3) No Civil Court shall entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of any dispute which has been referred to the Industrial Court under sub-section (1) and is pending before such Court and if any such suit or proceeding is pending in a Civil Court on the date of the reference the Civil Court shall, on receipt of a notice from the Industrial Court, cease to exercise jurisdiction in respect thereof and shall forthwith transfer the record of such suit or proceeding to the Industrial Court.” 9) Regulation 9 of the Regulations of 1961 is reproduced herein below : “9.Change of office-bearers-Intimation of any change in the officers of a registered Trade Union shall be sent to the Registrar within a fortnight of the change in Form E.” 10) The relevant provision of bye-laws of SEKMC with regard to meeting of General Council is reproduced herein below : -8- साधारण साभा “(11) संस्था की वार्षि की संधारण संभा दिसंम्बर या जनवार मासं मा बलाई जवागी जिजसंमा निनम्नलिलाखि"त कीया$वाही ही&गी- (अ) संस्था द्वार निकीया गीया कीया$ की प्रनितवान (रिरर्पो,ट) तथा ज/च निकीया गीया निहीसंब की& मान्या कीरन। (ब) की न्द्री4या संमिमानित की& 3 वा $ की लिलाए निनवा$चन कीरन। (सं) अन्या कीया$वाही ज& संभार्पोनित की अनमा&न सं ही& संभा मा प्रस्तत कीरन। (12) अध्याक्ष संस्था की संधारण संभा की& जब याही आवाश्याकी संमाझे तब बला संकीत ही=। अध्याक्ष की& संस्था की संधारण संभा बसं प्रनितशत संस्या? की लिलाखि"त मा/गी कीरन प्रथा$न र्पोत्र प्रप्तिBत सं कीमा सं कीमा 20 दिन की अवामिधा मा बलान ही&गी। अध्याक्ष की लिलाखि"त अनमानित एवा निनCश र्पोर माहीमात्र जब आवाश्याकी संमाझे तब संधारण संभा बला संकी गी। (13) संस्या? की संधारण संभा की संDचन कीमा सं कीमा र्पोन्द्रीही दिवासं र्पोDवा$ न ही&गी। (14) संधारण संभा की लिलाए संम्पूDण$ संस्या संख्या की एकी नितहीई संस्या? की उर्पोस्थिस्थानित आवाश्याकी (की&रमा) मान जवागी। आवाश्याकी संमिमानित की अभावा की कीरण स्थानिगीत की गीई संभा की लिलाए दूसंर ब=ठकी मा उर्पोस्थिस्थानित की आवाश्याकी प्रनितबधा नही रहीगी।" 11) Form-E submitted by the petitioner on 10.10.2024 was rejected whereas Form -E submitted by respondent No.3 dated 04.11.2024 was accepted by respondent No.2. The contents of complaint made against respondent no. 3 are as under:- (i) Various complaints were made against respondent No.3 by Sampat Kumar Shukla, Ramesh Mishra and Abdul Kalam Ansari making allegations that respondent No.3 misused his power, position and misappropriated the funds of Union. (ii) He did not call meeting as provided in the bye-laws. (iii) He withdrew Rs.57,00,000/- of the Trade Union from two bank accounts. (iv) He failed to submit details of expenditure before the Registrar pursuant to order passed in Writ Appeal No.531 of 2017. 9 12) The allegations made against Shri Sampat Kumar Shukla are as under:- (i) Show cause notices were issued to Sampat Kumar Shukla, Ramesh Mishra and Abdul Kalam Ansari and thereafter, they were expelled from their respective offices vide resolution dated 11.10.2024. (ii) The act and conduct of Shri Sampat Kumar Shukla was against the interest of Trade Union. (iii) The complaints made by Sampat Kumar Shukla, Ramesh Mishra and Abdul Kalam Ansari are baseless and they had no authority of law to misuse letter-pad of Trade Union. 13) The Respondent No.2 observed that election of Trade Union was held on 10.06.2023 for a period of three years wherein, respondent No.3 was elected as President and Shri Sampat Kumar Shukla Vice-president. Shri Sampat Kumar Shukla convened meeting contrary to provisions contained in bye laws. Shir Shukla had no authority to call meeting of general council. The petitioner failed to prove majority according to bye laws. 14) The Registrar further held that according to Clause 12 of the bye-laws, the Vice President has no authority to convene a meeting of Trade Union. The General Council formed by Shri Sampat Kumar Shukla and expulsion of respondent No.3 are contrary to the mandate of bye-laws. It is also held that there is mismatch in signatures of Shri Sampat Kumar Shukla on letters dated 26.09.2024, 18.10.2024 and 10.10.2024 and accordingly, respondent No.2 rejected the Form-E dated 10.10.2024 submitted by the petitioner and accepted Form-E submitted by respondent No.3 for change of office bearers. 15) A bare reading of Section 28-J of the Act of 1926 would make it clear that in case of dispute with regard to lawful officer of a registered -10- Trade Union, Registrar may refer the dispute to the Industrial Court and power has been conferred with the Industrial Court to decide the issue and its decision shall be final. 16) Regulation 9 of the Regulation of 1926 deals with change of office bearer. The trade Union or authorized office bearer has to intimate the Registrar with regard to change in the offices of Union within fortnight. 17) As per bye-laws, the president may call meeting of General Council. Such meeting may also be called on written request of 20% of the members of the General Council. 18) In the matter of P.K. Ray(supra), the Coordinate Bench while dealing with similar issue in paras 12 & 16 held as under : “12. From the above rival contentions put forth and from perusal of the impugned order dated 21.3.2016 (Annexure P1), it reveals that before the Registrar Trade Union, the Petitioners have submitted a new amended Form E pursuant to the General Council Meeting dated 4.2.2016 and amended bylaws and before the Registrar Respondents 3 and 4 have also submitted their amended bylaws claiming themselves to be President and Working President of the Trade Union. Thus, it is clear that before the Registrar, a dispute arose that who were the lawful office bearers of the Trade Union. 16.In the instant case, as the amended Form E has been submitted by themselves as the office bearers of the Union and the amended bylaws have also been submitted by Respondents 3 and 4 claiming themselves to be legal office bearers of the Trade Union, a dispute was present before the Registrar that who are the lawful office bearers of the Trade Union. Therefore, the Registrar ought to have referred the dispute to the Industrial Court as contained in Section 28J of the Act of 1926 and it would be decided by the Industrial Court in the manner as prescribed under Section 28J(2)(2a) (2b) of the Act of 1926. Despite that, the Registrar Trade Union declined Form E submitted by the Petitioners holding Respondents 3 and 4 as lawful office bearers and accepted the proposed 11 amendment of the bylaws, which, in considered view of this Court, is not sustainable for the reasons discussed above.” 19) The said judgment was assailed in Writ Appeal No.612 of 2022 and it was dismissed. 20) In the matter of Mohanlal (supra), the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court while dealing with the similar issue, in para 6 held as under : "6. In the circumstances if the respondent No.2 approached the respondent No.1 that the petitioner ceased to be the General Secretary of the Union and the respondent No.3 was elected in his place and this fact was disputed by the petitioner the Registrar had no authority to decide the dispute and accept the application of the respondent No.2. The Registrar either should have referred the dispute to the Industrial Court himself or should have directed the respondent No.2 to do so. In the circumstances the impugned order No.32/2/Chaturth/1983/4887-88 D./- 2-2-1983 (Ann. P.5) passed by the respondent No.1 registering the name of the respondent No.3 as the General Secretary of the Union cannot be sustained in law and must be quashed. We however make it clear that the term of the office of the petitioner having already expired, nothing in this order shall be construed so as to extend the term of his office as General Secretary of the Union." 21) In the matter of R.K. Kathal Vs. Registrar, Trade Union, reported in 2008(3) MPLJ 30, the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in para 20 held as under : "20. On a bare reading of the said provision it is clear as noon day, if there is any dispute as to the lawful officer of the registered Trade Union any person claiming to be such officer or the Registrar may refer the dispute to the Industrial Court in such a manner as may be prescribed. On a reference being made, the Industrial Court shall, after hearing the parties to such dispute and recording such evidence as it may consider necessary, decide the dispute and declare who is the lawful officer. The decision of the Industrial Court shall be final and shall not be called in question in any Court of law. Civil suit is barred in respect of any dispute which has been referred to the Industrial Court under sub-section (1) of section 28-J. In the case at hand, the -12- dispute is writ large with regard to the office bearers. The same, in our considered opinion, is within the ambit and sweep of section 28-J of the Act. None of the provisions of the Act empowers the Registrar, Trade Unions to deal with an election dispute. The power conferred on him pertains to registration of Trade Unions, issue of certificate and cancellation of such a certificate. The moment a cavil is raised or controversy is put forth with regard to the status of office-bearers the Registrar may refer the dispute or the office-bearers can raise a dispute before the Industrial Court, whose decision is final. Power of the Civil Court has been ousted. Needless to state, the same would be subject to judicial review of this Court." 22) Learned Senior counsel appearing for respondent No.3 has made attempt to demonstrate that Shri Sampat Kumar Shukla was not competent to call meeting of Trade Union and meeting of General Council was called contrary to the bye-laws but the fact remains that respondent No.3 was expelled and Form-E was submitted before respondent No.2 on 10.10.2024 and thereafter, respondent No.3 convened a meeting on 04.11.2024 and submitted Form-E for change of office bearers wherein, resolution was passed to expel Shri Sampat Kumar Shukla, Ramesh Mishra and Abdul Kalam Ansari. The resolution passed by the petitioner may be in contravention to the bye-laws of the Trade Union but there was resolution whereby respondent No.3 was expelled from the office of President of the Trade Union. 23) Further, there was a dispute as to who is the lawful officer of the Registered Trade Union as Shri Sampat Kumar Shukla as well as respondent No.3 both claimed themselves as President of the Trade Union on the basis of resolutions passed by the General Council in their favour therefore, according to the provisions of Section 28-J of the Act of 1926 the respondent no. 2 should have referred the dispute to the Industrial Court. 13 24) In the matter of P.K. Ray (Supra) the coordinate bench has held that in such a situation, the Registrar has to refer the matter to the Industrial Tribunal or said authority may direct the parties to approach the Industrial Tribunal. The decision was affirmed in Writ Appeal also. 25) With regard to impleadment of the Registrar for personal capacity, such order may be challenged before the superior authorities or before the High Court and as the respondent No.2 has exercised its statutory power conferred under the Act of 1926, therefore, no observation is required in this regard. 26) In the matter of Mukund Ram Tanti (supra), the High Court of Patna has held that though not specifically, but impliedly it is a part of the duty of the Registrar of the Trade Unions to record the changes of office bearers in the appropriate register. The Registrar has to maintain up to date register recording the relevant time. It is also held that after election of new office bearer, the Registrar is within his rights to ascertain whether they were legally elected so as to be recorded in the register maintained for the purpose. Para 7 is reproduced herein below : “(7) It also appears from certain provisions of the Act - though not specifically, but impliededly that it is a part of the duty of the Registrar of the 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 section 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 Section 28 of the Act, the offences of the Trade Union have to be prosecuted with the Act. According to -14- Regulation 14, the returns have to be submitted to the Registrar by the 31st day of July in each year. It is conceded that the old office-bearers continue up to the 31st day of March of a particular year and the new office-bearers start functioning from the 1st day of April, of that year. It is, therefore, manifest that the returns required by section 28 of the Act, which have to be filed by the 31st of July in each year, will have to be filed by the new office-bearers, although the statements made in the returns related to the period when the old office-bearers were functioning. If, therefore, the new office-bearers do not submit the returns, they may have to be prosecuted with the previous sanction of the Registrar for failure to submit the same, and, in order that the Registrar could give sanction for prosecution of such new office-bearers, it is essential and a part of his duty to ascertain and know who those new office-bearers were. In other words, the Registrar, for the purpose of the Act, has to maintain an up to date register recording the names of the office-bearers existing at the relevant time. Without maintaining such register with names of new bearers substituted for the old ones, the Registrar, in my opinion, cannot be expected to see that the provisions of the Act have been legally complied with. In Substituting the names of the new office bearers, the Registrar has, therefore, to find if those new office- bearers were legally elected because, if their election is not legal, there may be a grave doubt whether they could be prosecuted for failure to submit the returns. 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 were legally elected so as to be recorded in the register maintained for the purpose and to be bound for compliance of the provisions of the Act. In other words, the Registrar has full jurisdiction to enquire 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. In this particular case, the order of the Registrar clearly shows that the election of the new office-bearers was not accepted by him to be legal only for the purpose of maintenance of records in his office to facilitate the administration under the Act.” 27) Present is not a case of new election. There is a dispute as to who is lawful officer of the registered Trade Union as the petitioner as well as respondent No.3 both have claimed themselves as President of the Trade Union. In their favour resolutions have been passed in meeting of General Council. Thus, it can be concluded that there is a dispute with 15 regard to their status. 28) In the case of new election, the Registrar is within his jurisdiction to record the names of elected members in the register maintained for this purpose and while entering names of office bearers, the authority may inquire about the legality and validity of election but as case at hand is not a case of new election, therefore, the judgment cited by learned Senior counsel is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. 29) Considering the above-discussed facts and the law laid down by various Courts, the order passed by respondent No.2 dated 04.12.2024 (Annexure P/1) is hereby set aside. The parties would be at liberty to avail remedy available under the law. 30) In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge