1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5532/2006 (Gangadhar Shankarrao Girsawle & anr. Vs. Naresh Chunnilal Puglia & ors) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATED : 6 th OCTOBER, 2008. Heard Shri Ghate for the petitioners, Shri M.R. Pillai for the respondent nos. 1 to 18, and Shri Mehadia for respondent no.19. The petitioners claim to be the office bearers of the Maharashtra Elektrosmelt Kamgar Union which is a recognized union under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. Sixteen office bearers of the Union were elected on 10/8/1996. It is the case of the petitioners that some of the respondents had called a meeting of the members of the Union on 17/3/2001, without any locus to call a meeting. A new body of the office bearers of the Union was declared to be elected and a sanction was sought from the Deputy Registrar of the Trade Unions. The Deputy Registrar had, by an order dated 8/5/2001, declared that the newly elected body shall take over the charge and look after the Union. The order dated 8/5/2001 was 2 challenged by the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 1598/2001 on the ground that the Deputy Registrar, Trade Unions, did not have jurisdiction to certify the validity of the election of the office bearers of the Union. The Division bench of this Court, however, dismissed the Writ Petition No. 1598/2001 by holding that the Deputy Registrar had jurisdiction to pass the order dated 8/5/2001. The order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1598/2001, was challenged by the petitioners before the Supreme Court, but the Special Leave Petition was also dismissed. After having failed before the High Court and the Supreme Court, the petitioners took the recourse to the provisions of Section 28(1-A) of the Trade Union Act, 1926 and filed the complaint before the Industrial Court. On 12/10/2006, the Industrial Court dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioners mainly on the ground that the Division Bench of this Court had held in the order passed in Writ Petition No. 1598/2001, that the order dated 8/5/2001, passed by the Deputy Registrar was valid and with the dismissal of the writ petition, the petitioners could not have challenged the order dated 8/5/2001 in a complaint before the Industrial Court. The order passed by the Industrial Court on 12/10/2006 is impugned in the instant writ petition. 3 The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Deputy Registrar did not have jurisdiction to pass the order dated 8/5/20001 and to substantiate the aforesaid submission, the learned counsel relied on the decision of the Jharkhand High Court reported in 2002 II CLR 719. It was also submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the provisions of Section 16 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 were not complied with and hence the Industrial Court was not justified in dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioners by the impugned order dated 12th October, 2006. The learned counsel for the respondents supported the order passed by the Industrial Court on 12th October, 2006. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have also perused the order passed by the Deputy Registrar on 8/5/2001 and the impugned order dated 12th October, 2006. It is not in dispute that the order passed by the Deputy Registrar on 8/5/2001 was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1598/2001, and the High Court had held that the order dated 8/5/2001 could not have been said to have been passed in the absence of jurisdiction. The High Court decided the question of correctness of the order passed by the Deputy Registrar on 8/5/2001 on merits while dismissing 4 the writ petition. The order passed by the High Court was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in this background, the Industrial Court was justified in holding that by the instant complaint, the petitioners were adjudicating the same issue which was already decided by the High Court. The Industrial Court rightly held that it was not open to the petitioners to agitate the same issue before the Industrial Court though it is a competent forum to resolve the dispute under Section 28(1-A) of the Trade Union Act, 1926, as the issue was already decided by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 1598/2001 on merits. The Industrial Court further observed, and rightly so, that it was also apparent from the record that after the passing of the order dated 8/5/2001, the respondents had again held the General Body Meeting of the Union in the year 2002-2003 and in view of the subsequent events, the order passed by the Deputy Registrar on 8/5/2001, had been virtually eclipsed. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, the decision reported in 2002 II CLR 719 and relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners, cannot be made applicable to the facts of the case as the jurisdiction of the Deputy Registrar to pass the order dated 8/5/2001 was an issue before the High Court and the same was decided against the petitioners by 5 the High Court by dismissing the Writ Petition No. 1598/2001. The provisions of Section 16 of the Act of 1946 are also not applicable to the facts of the case as they speak of the registration and re- registration of the union. The Deputy Registrar had, by the order dated 8/5/2001, declared that the body elected on 17/3/2001 shall take over the charge and the matter did not pertain to the de-registration of the union. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP