IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 21.11.2008 C O R A M : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. CHANDRU W.P.No.9843 of 2000 ICICI Bank Employees' Union, rep.by its General Secretary Mr.M.Lakshmanan, No.758, Anna Salai, Madras-2. .. Petitioner (cause title amended vide order in WPMP. No.6478 of 2002, dated 01.9.2003) -vs- 1.Additional Registrar of Trade Unions, Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Gandhi Nagar, Madurai. 2.ICICI Bank Limited, rep.by its Senior Executive Vice President, (HR Department), Old No.758, (New No.192), Anna Salai, Madras-600 002. 3.M.Jayakumar .. Respondents (R3 impleaded as per order of court dt. 12.12.2000 in WMP.19273 of 2000) PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the first respondent in Ref.No.B5/11696/99, dated 30.5.2000 and the consequential proceedings in Ref.No.B5/11616/99, dated 06.6.2000 issued to the second respondent and quash the same. For petitioner : Mr.V.Prakash, SC for Ms.G.Ramapriya For respondents : Mr.Mr.Arumugam, Spl.GP(R1) Mr.Sanjay Mohan for M/s.Ramasubramaniam Associates (R2) Mr.N.Maninarayanan (R3) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E R The petitioner is a registered trade union representing the employees of the erstwhile Bank of Madura, which has been since taken over by the ICICI Bank. The petitioner has taken out an application in WPMP.6478 of 2000 to amend the causetitle giving the correct description of the parties. Subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, the third respondent got himself impleaded by an order dated 12.12.2000. 2. The prayer in the writ petition is to challenge the order of the first respondent dated 30.5.2000 as well as the consequential proceedings dated 06.6.2000 and to set aside the same. 3. Notice of motion was ordered in the writ petition on 20.6.2000 and subsequently it was admitted on 13.7.2000. Pending the writ petition, an interim stay was granted of the impugned proceedings which was also made absolute on 03.1.2003. 4. Though an application was taken out in WPMP.No.6479 of 2000 seeking for a direction to the first respondent to register the amendments to the bye-laws including the amendment made to clause 4 (a) of the bye-laws, the said application was rejected by this Court on 01.9.2003. 5. The petitioner union is a registered Trade Union with Registration No.3233. It is also affiliated to the Trade Union Federation known as 'All India Bank Employees' Association' (AIBEA). It is seen from the records that the third respondent floated a rival union with the same name as that of the petitioner and got it registered with Registration No.1147/MDU. Therefore, the petitioner union filed a writ petition against the third respondent and his newly formed trade union before this Court being W.P.No.7391 of 1998. This Court by an order dated 05.1.2000 allowed the writ petition. It was held that the Certificate of Registration obtained by the third respondent was contrary to section 7(2) of the Trade Union's Act, 1926. Therefore, the registration was set aside. This provoked the third respondent to send a complaint against the petitioner union along with two others on 27.4.2000. 6. The first respondent is the Additional Registrar of Trade Unions. He is also a Deputy Commissioner of Labour at Madurai. After receiving the complaint from the third respondent, he passed the impugned order dated 30.5.2000. 7. In the impugned order, it is stated that the bye-laws of the society had authorised the petitioner to collect only Rs.6/- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ as a monthly subscription from the clerical staff and Rs.4/- from the sub staff. But, however, they had collected a sum of Rs.10/- from clerical staff and Rs.6 from subordinate staff and watchmen from 01.1.1995 to 31.8.1997 towards monthly subscription. From 01.9.1997, they were collecting Rs.25/- from clerical staff and Rs.15/- from subordinate staff and watchmen. Thereby, the petitioner trade union had violated Section 28(3) of the Trade Unions Act, 1926. It was also brought to their notice that they have not amended the bye-laws. Therefore, a direction was also issued to refund the excess monthly subscription collected to its members within 30 days, failing which, they were warned that suitable action will be taken under section 10(b) of the Trade Unions Act. Consequent upon the said communication, the first respondent also sent a letter dated 06.6.2000 to the erstwhile Bank of Madura Limited asking them to confirm whether any excess subscription was collected and paid to the petitioner union. 8. Mr.V.Prakash, learned Senior Counsel had submitted that the first respondent Additional Registrar of Trade Unions has no power either under section 28 or any other provisions of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 to issue the direction found in the impugned order. The right of the petitioner union to collect various amounts from the employees towards subscription and other expenditure is fully authorised by the general body of the union. A disgruntled element like the third respondent who had also floated a rival union cannot object to the affairs of the present union. The attempt by the first respondent to receive a complaint from the first respondent who has admittedly floated a rival union cannot be entertained by the first respondent. In any event, inasmuch as any employee of the second respondent bank who are members of the petitioner union have never made a complaint regarding the socalled excess deduction, the first respondent cannot entertain such complaints. 9. Even otherwise the relationship between the union and the members are purely contractual and they being members of the registered union are bound by the decisions of the general body. The Trade Unions Act does not prohibit any deduction towards the general fund of the trade union and if there was any aggrieved person who feels that there was excess deduction, he can only approach an appropriate Civil Court. 10. He also submitted that the general body of the trade union vide its meeting held on 13th and 14th April 2001 had passed an amendment revising the monthly subscription from the members from Rs.25/- to Rs.35/- for the clerical staff and Rs.15/- to 25/- for the subordinate staff. This general body resolution amending the bye-laws were forwarded to the first respondent with a covering letter dated 23.4.2001. But, however, the first respondent, for the reasons best known to him, instead of registering the bye-laws, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ returned the proposal with a covering letter dated 09.5.2001. He quoted the pendency of the present writ petition for the return of the request. The fact that the general body of the petitioner union in its earlier meeting held on 17th and 18th December 1994 had revised the subscription rates from the earlier subscription was not denied. The further revision made had the approval of the general body dated 24th and 25th August 1997 was also not denied. An attempt was made by the third respondent to state that the Registrar of the Trade Union being the authority to implement the Trade Unions Act, 1926, has every right to question the violation of the bye-laws adopted by a trade union does not draw any support from the Act. 11. It cannot be said that the action of the petitioner union had anyway contravened the provisions of the Trade Unions Act. As contended by the learned Senior Counsel that each year the petitioner union has filed the return in form-E read with Section 28. No objection has been taken by the Registrar of Trade Unions all these years. The decision of the trade union to collect the enhanced subscription was taken at its general body meetings. All the employees who are its members have contributed the same without any protest. The attempt made by the third respondent is to create unnecessary confusion. In any event, section 28(3) quoted by the trade union Registrar has no relevance. If there was any violation in Form E return, only penalty can be imposed. The direction issued by the Trade Union Registrar to refund the amount is beyond his jurisdiction. Further, when the union authorised by its general body has filed amendments to its bye-laws for registration, the first respondent has returned the said proposal quoting the pendency of the writ petition has no legal basis. 12. Though the first respondent was served, there has been no reply from his side. The contentions raised by the petitioner union is well founded and merits acceptance. A perusal of the Trade Unions Act 1926 and the rules framed thereunder do not clothe the Registrar with any such power ordering refund of the amounts collected pursuant to the authorisation given by the general body. The issue is purely between the members and their trade union. In the absence of any member raising a dispute before an appropriate forum, the impugned orders are invalid and are liable to be set aside. The Additional Registrar of the Trade Union, namely, the first respondent, having received the annual returns in Form-E all these years never questioned the statement of accounts shown in the said return. He cannot overnight wake up and direct refund of amounts allegedly collected in excess. There was no allegation of misappropriation of funds or that it was squandered without being accounted had been raised by the third respondent or found as a reason in the impugned order. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 13. Hence, the writ petition stands allowed. The impugned order of the first respondent will stand set aside. The first respondent is hereby directed to receive the application for amendment of the bye-laws sent with the covering letter dated 23.4.2001 or any new amendment proposed to the bye-laws and register the same in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. js To 1.The Additional Registrar of Trade Unions, Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Gandhi Nagar, Madurai. 1 cc to Mrs. G. Padmapriya, Advocate, SR. 65557 W.P.No.9843 of 2000 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/