Disposed

Telco Workers Union through Its General Secretary Prakash Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC5 Jul 2018WPC/1396/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged cancellation of registration by Bihar Labour Commissioner for non-filing of annual returns, claiming registration transferred to Jharkhand upon state reorganization. Court disposed of petition directing Petitioner to approach Registrar, Trade Unions, Jharkhand to resolve the issue.

What did the court decide?

Disposed with direction to approach Registrar, Trade Unions, Jharkhand to determine the issue of annual return submission after giving hearing.

Telco Workers Union through Its General… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (L) No.1396 of 2018

¶2

With

¶3

I.A. No.5012 of 2018

¶4

¶5

Telco Workers’ Union, Hans Stoehr Road, Telco, Jamshedpur.

¶6

.......... Petitioner.

¶7

-Versus-

¶8

The State of Jharkhand.

¶9

Labour Commissioner-cum-Registrar, Trade unions, Government of Jharkhand, Doranda, Ranchi.

¶10

The Dy. Labour Commissioner, Jamshedpur.

¶11

The State of Bihar.

¶12

Labour Commissioner-cum-Registrar, Trade unions, Government of Bihar, Office at Secretariat, P.O. & P.S. Gandhi Maidan, District Patna.

¶13

.......... Respondents.

¶14

¶15

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶16

----For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Singh, Advocate For State of Jharkhand: A.C. to G.P.IV For State of Bihar : Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Advocate

¶17

¶18

Order No.04 Date: 05.07.2018

¶19

The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing Memo No.3/T2-25/2016 Shra. San. 2646 dated 3^rd May, 2017 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) issued by the Labour Commissioner-cum-Registrar, Trade Unions, Bihar (respondent no.5), whereby the registration of the petitioner being Registration No.98 dated 20^th September, 1946 under the provisions of Trade Unions Act, 1926 has been cancelled de hors the provisions of said Act on the ground that annual statement/return has not been submitted by the petitioner before the said authority.

¶20

Mr. Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is very old trade union, registered under the provisions of Trade Unions Act, 1926, having Registration No.98 dated 20^th September, 1946. After reorganization of the State of Bihar and creation of the State of Jharkhand with effect from 15^th November, 2000, the said registration of the petitioner got automatically transferred to the State of Jharkhand by operation of law and, accordingly, the petitioner started submitting annual statements/returns before the Registrar, Trade Unions, Jharkhand (respondent no.2) with effect from the year 2000 itself. However,

¶21

-2-

¶22

ignoring the said fact, the respondent no.5 vide impugned order dated 3^rd May, 2017 arbitrarily cancelled the registration of the petitioner on the ground that annual return has not been submitted for several years, which is contrary to the provisions of Section 28 of Trade Unions Act, 1926. The respondent no.5 failed to appreciate that there was no reason for the petitioner to submit annual return in his office, as the same was being submitted in the office of his counterpart (Registrar, Trade Unions, Jharkhand- respondent no.2) after creation of the State of Jharkhand. Since the respondent no.2 is well recognizing the petitioner as a trade union having Registration No.98 dated 20^th September, 1946, the impugned order dated 3^rd May, 2017 may not have any material consequence, yet the management i.e. M/s. Tata Motors taking note of the impugned order dated 3^rd May, 2017 passed by the respondent no.5 has initiated process for evicting the members of the petitioner from the office premises of the Union. The present writ petition has, therefore, been filed by the petitioner with the notion that there may not be any future complication due to passing of the impugned order dated 3^rd may, 2017 by the respondent no.5.

¶23

Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent-State of Bihar, submits that the impugned order dated 3^rd may, 2017 has rightly been passed by the respondent no.5, as it was noticed by the said authority that the annual return was not being filed by the petitioner-union for years together as mandated in Section 28 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926. The impugned order has been passed after publishing the notice in the local newspapers and uploading the same in the official website. If the petitioner’s contention that its registration has automatically got transferred by operation of law to the State of Jharkhand is accepted, the impugned order dated 3^rd May, 2017 passed by the respondent no.5 may not have any adverse consequence for the petitioner.

¶24

Learned A.C. to G.P.IV appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand submits that once the petitioner has taken a plea that the respondent no.5 has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order dated

¶25

-3-

¶26

3^rd May, 2017, as the petitioner- trade union has the area of operation exclusively within the State of Jharkhand, then the cancellation of its registration by the respondent no.5 does not warrant any interference.

¶27

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it seems appropriate that the petitioner should approach the Registrar, Trade Unions, Jharkhand (respondent no.2) by filing a representation with respect to the present issue and to get it determined by the said authority. If such representation is preferred by the petitioner, the respondent no.2 shall take up the matter and after providing due opportunity of hearing to the concerned persons, pass appropriate order expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶28

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.

¶29

I.A. No.5012 of 2018 also stands disposed of.

¶30

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶31

Sanjay/

Telco Workers Union through Its General Secretary Prakash Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Telco Workers Union through Its General Secretary Prakash Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Security and Intelligence Service India Limited through Tarun Kumar Sinha Vs State Bank of India through the Chief General Mnager

Jharkhand Stone Mineral Works Through Its Proprietor Md Tipu Ansari Vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The Secretary Deptt Of Mines And Ors.

Nafisa Stone Works Through Its Proprietor Rahim Sheikh Vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The Secretary Deptt Of Mines And Ors.

Employer In Relation To The Management Of Uco Bank Through Asst General Manager Vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Dr Swarali Krishna Kondwilkar Vs Union of India through the Pr Secretary Department of Health and Family Welfare

Ms Mecon Ltd. through Its General Manager Sri Tej Pratap Chopra Vs the Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Power