29.09.2026 Item No.26 Ct. No. 30 Aloke WPA 27372 of 2026 CESC Power Sthyaee Karmachari Sangh & Anr. Vs The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Joydip Kar, ld. Sr. Adv. Mr. Debdut Mukehrjee Mr. S.N. Upadhyay Mr. Anurag Modi Mr. Utkarsh Singh … for the petitioners Mr. Balaram Patra Mr. Anuj Kr. Mishra Mr. Pradip Kumar … for the respondent no.4 Mr. Suvodip Bhattachrjee … for the respondent no. 5 Mr. Soumya Majumder, ld. Sr. Adv. Mr. Debanjan Mukherjee …for CESC/respondent no.6 Mr. Nilanjan Bhattacharjee, ld.Sr. Adv. Ms. Aparna Banerjee Mr. Debasish Basu Mr. Atanu Basu Mr. Abhilash Chatterjee Mr. Jitendra Kr. Sharma … for the State 1. The writ application has been preferred challenging an order dated 8th September, 2026, passed by the respondent no. 2/The Registrar of Trade Unions. 2. Vide the impugned order the Registrar of Trade Unions has held as follows : “On perusal of the documents and office records, it is observed that Sri Sumanta Kumar Nayak at one point of time remained the General Secretary of the union and the original records including 2 the original certificate of registration had been kept in his custody. He did not return the same to his successor when he left the union. Afterwards, an application for having a duplicate copy of the registration certificate was submitted by Sri Pijush Banerjee being in the capacity of General Secretary of the said union. After Inspection of the records including the Annual Returns submitted by the said trade union it was found satisfactory to issue the duplicate certificate of registration to the applicant. Sri Pijush Banerjee indeed established that the union was affiliated to Bharatiya Mardoor Sangh (BMS) at that point of time and this fact of affiliation under BMS has also been confirmed by the BMS authorities. It is also observed that Sri Sumanta Kumar Nayak had submitted a set of Annual Return for the year 2025. However, holding the original certificate of registration in one's possession cannot be the regarded the only ground of being the real office bearers of the union. The breakaway group headed by Sri Sumanta Kumar Nayak/Sri Rakash Kumar Singh could not produce any order from the appropriate Civil Court to establish their locus standi to get registration of the proposed change of address from the registered head office of the union from one place to the other. Because of the fact as above, notices in Form-Cl and F1 given by Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh and his men, amongst others, Sri Sumanta Kumar Nayak cannot stand in the eye of law and hence, rejected. The same is applicable to the notice/application submitted by Sri Amar Bahadur Singh and the same is also rejected. In that view of the matter, the applications in Form-‘I’ made by Sri Sarmana Kumar Nayak and Sri Amar Bahadur Singh for the purpose of recognition of C.E.S.C. Power Sthayee Karmachari Sangh (Regn. No. 28048) in the establishment of M/s C.E.S.C. Ltd., 3 CESC House, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700 001 stand rejected. Therefore, the application in Form- ‘I’ submitted by Sri Pijush Banerjee, General Secretary of C.E.S.C. Power Sthayee Karmachari Sangh (Reg. No. 28048) remains sustained for the purpose of recognition in the establishment of M/s CESC Ltd., CESC House, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700 001. With the orders as above, the notices for the change of address and applications for recognition in respect of the said C.E.S.C. Power Sthayee Karmachari Sangh (Regn. No. 28048) stand disposed of.” 3. The respondent no. 5 herein has raised the issue of maintainability which has been countered by Mr. Kar, learned senior counsel appearing for t he petitioner stating that the nature of order challenged herein is not covered under Section 11 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926. 4. On hearing the parties, this Court finds that the order passed is not covered under the provisions of Section 11 of the Act and as such the writ in it’s present form is maintainable. 5. Mr. Kar submits that the impugned order is bad in law as the petitioner no. 2’s documents have been totally ignored by the respondent no. 2, whereas the respondent no. 5’s documents have been duly considered and his prayers have also been allowed, whereas the petitioner no.2’s prayer and applications have been rejected, leading to the petitioner being seriously prejudiced. 4 6. Mr. Majumder, learned senior counsel appearing for the CESC has placed petitioners’ Advocate’s letter at page 323 to the writ application being annexure-P-10 wherein it is stated that the matter for consideration of the Registrar of Trade Unions in the impugned order was a request by the petitioner for change of the registered address of the Trade Union and for cancellation and withdrawal of the duplicate registration certificate issued to the respondent no. 5. 7. Mr. Majumder further submits that the Registrar of Trade Unions was only required to decide the said issues which he was authorized to decide and has thus decided the same. 8. Mr. Kar submits that by rejecting the Form-I submitted by the petitioner no. 2 which was a prayer for recognition of the petitioner no. 1 Trade Union, the respondent no. 2, in view of his observation therein has prima facie gone into the issue of Intra Trade Union rivalry between the petitioner no. 2 and the respondent no. 5. 9. Mr. Kar thus prays for setting aside of the said order. 10. On the other hand, Mr. Majumder appearing for the CESC submits that a dispute relating to and between the officer bearers of the a Trade Union is an Intra Trade Union rivalry and in view of the judgments in R.N. Singh & Anr. vs. State of Bihar 5 & Ors. reported in 1998 SCC OnLine Pat 100 and O.N.G.C. Workmen’s Association vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in 1987 SCC OnLine Cal 255 is subject to adjudication by a Civil Court. 11. Mr. Majumder further submits that the office bearers of the trade union may be having a dispute as to the positions held by the parties, but there is no challenge to the said registered Trade Union, which is free to participate in the elections for recognition, to be conducted by the respondent no. 2, as the dispute between the office bearers is not an embargo or an obstacle for the Elections to proceed, in view of the fact that a recognized Trade Union is an important body for collective bargaining in an establishment/company. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 submits that the parent Union of the petitioner no. 1/Trade Union is Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh (BMS) and it is Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh (BMS) to which the petitioner no. 1 Trade Union being Sthyaee Karmachari Sangh is affiliated to and the said affiliation has been confirmed by the BMS authorities. 13. The Registrar of Trade Unions in the impugned order has observed that the respondent no. 5 has established the said fact and the BMS Authorities have confirmed the same and on being 6 satisfied, the Registrar of Trade Unions issued the duplicate certificate of registration to the respondent no. 5. 14. In view of the said observations and findings of the respondent no. 2, the Registrar of Trade Unions, this Court prima facie finds no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. The Registrar of Trade Unions on considering the documents before it, was of the view that it is the respondent no. 5 who was authorized by the parent body to apply for recognition and contest the Election and accepted the same by a reasoned order. 15. The application of the petitioner no. 2 herein was thus rejected by the Registrar of Trade Unions on the ground that it was the respondent no. 5 whose application was in accordance with law, even though he was issued a duplicate certificate. More so, in view of the fact that the respondent no. 5 had the support of the parent body of the Union being BMS. 16. Regarding the rejection of Form-I, this Court finds that the dispute lies between the office bearers of the petitioner no. 1, Trade Union and as the respondent no. 2 has accepted the application of the respondent no. 5 on the grounds therein, the petitioner no. 2’s Form-I has been rejected giving reasons. As such, any dispute between the officer bearers of the petitioner no. 1/ Trade Unions is an 7 Intra Trade Union rivalry subject to adjudication by a Civil Court in view of the judgments in R.N. Singh (supra) and O.N.G.C. Workmen’s Association (supra) and the officer bearers are at liberty to approach the proper forum (Civil Court). 17. Considering the said facts, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order. 18. The respondent no. 2 is at liberty to proceed with the Election for recognition of the Trade Unions in accordance with law. 19. The writ application stands disposed of. 20. Connected application, if any, stands disposed of. 21. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)