1 W.P. No. 15429/2010 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON. SHRI JUSTICE A.K. SHRIVASTAVA WRIT PETITION NO. 15429/2010 ......... Petitioner R.P. Patel S/o Shri Rajmani Patel Aged about 47 years, R/o NH-3/B-143, Vindhya Nagar, District Singrauli (M.P.) Versus ........ Respondents 1. Registrar, Trade Union, E-Block, Old Secretariat, Bhopal (M.P.) 2. N.K. Chaudhary S/o S. Chaudhary Aged about 49 years, R/o NH-3b, 223, Vindhya Nagar, District Singrauli (M.P.) ................................................................................................ Petitioner - Shri R.B. Tiwari, Advocate Respondent No.2 - Shri Sanjay Verma, Advocate ............................................................................................... O R D E R (18/03/2011) 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the validity of the impugned order dated 04.10.2010 (Annexure P/10) passed by the Registrar, Trade Union registering Form 'E' in favour of respondent no.2. 2 W.P. No. 15429/2010 2. No exhaustive statement of facts are required to be narrated for the purpose of disposal of this petition. Suffice it to say that petitioner as well as respondent no.2 submitted requisite application to get their names registered under the Indian Trade Union Act, 1926 (in short 'the Act') on the prescribed format. However, the Registrar, Trade Union accepted the Form 'E' of the office bearers of respondent no.2 and accordingly registered the “Vindhachal Brahad Taap Vidyut Karmchari Sangh” Union to be a registered Trade Union under the Act. 3. Vehemently, it has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that when there were two claimants and each of them were praying to the Registrar to register the Union of the officer bearers of the Union, the Registrar ought to have referred the matter under Section 28-J (M.P. State Amendment) to the Industrial Court. In this regard my attention has been drawn to the said provision. Hence, it has been submitted by learned counsel that the action of the Registrar, Trade Union is not only arbitrary but de hors to the provisions. 4. On the other hand, Shri Verma, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submitted that still the remedy is available to the petitioner by approaching Industrial Court against the order of registration of the Registrar, Trade Union under the said provision and, therefore, since an efficacious and alternative 3 W.P. No. 15429/2010 remedy is available to the petitioner, this Court should not interfere in the order of the Registrar, Trade Union. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be disposed of for the reasons hereinafter given:- 6. Indeed, the petitioner as well as the respondent no.2 submitted a list of their office bearers in the Form 'E' of the Act before the Registrar to get their office bearers registered in the name of Union “Vindhachal Bravad Taap Vidyut Karmchari Sangh”. But Indeed Registrar accepted Form 'E' of the respondent no.2. According to me, even if by accepting the arguments of the petitioner this Court holds that it was incumbent upon the Registrar to refer the matter to the Industrial Court for adjudication under Section 28-J of the Act, since this remedy is still available to the petitioner and he can file necessary reference before the Industrial Court even against the order of the Registrar of Trade Union and therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am declined to interfere in the impugned order passed by Registrar, Trade Union. The Madras High Court in R. Murugesan Vs. Union Territory of Pondicherry and others 1976 (II) L.L.J. 435 has also held the same preposition of law. 4 W.P. No. 15429/2010 7. The petitioner, if he is so advised, may refer the matter to the Industrial Court under Section 28-J of the Act. Learned counsel submits that there is an interim order existing in favour of the petitioner There is a provision to apply for the interim order when the matter is referred to the Tribunal and in that case, the petitioner, if so advised may file necessary application under the said provision before the Tribunal. Needless to say, if such an application is filed the same may be decided in accordance with law. 8. With the aforesaid observation, this petition is disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (A.K. SHRIVASTAVA) JUDGE rao 5 W.P. No. 15429/2010 W.P. No. 15429/2010 18.03.2011 Shri R.B. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Verma, learned counsel for the respondent no.2. Although today the matter has been listed for admission, and taking additional documents on record, however, learned counsel for the parties submit that point involved is short and the petition itself be heard finally. Order dictated. Signed and dated separately. (A.K. Shrivastava) Judge rao