Jharkhand High Court
Chandra Shekhar Dubey vs The State Of Jharkhand; on 28 April, 2025
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
2025:JHHC:12837
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (L) No. 4593 of 2024
---------
Chandra Shekhar Dubey, aged about 76 years, son of Late Anirudh
Dubey, having his office at Sector -B, Qtr. No. 375, Bokaro Steel
City, P.O & P.S. Bokaro Steel City, Dist: Bokaro, Jharkhand and
also the learned Secretary of Bokaro Steel Workers Union having its
registered office at Bokaro Steel City, P.O & P.S: Bokaro Steel City,
Dist: Bokaro 827003, Jharkhand . ….Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand;
2. The Secretary, Department of Labour, Employment and
Training, Govt of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O & P.S:
Dhurwa, Dist: Ranchi;
3. The Labour Commissioner-cum-Registrar / Trade Union,
Department of Labour, Employment and Training, Govt of
Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O & P.S: Dhurwa, Dist: Ranchi;
4. The Registrar, Trade Union, Department of Labour,
Employment and Training, Govt of Jharkhand, Project
Building, P.O & P.S: Dhurwa, Dist: Ranchi;
5. Birendra Nath Choubey, aged 66 years, son of Late R.N.
Choubey, resident of Qtr. No. 2-178, Sector 2/A, P.O & P.S
Bokaro Steel City, Dist: Bokaro, Jharkhand illegally claiming
himself to the General Secretary, Bokaro Steel Workers Union,
INTUC Affiliation No. 2826 having its registered office at III/B,
Qtr No. 247, Bokaro Steel City, P.O & P.S: Bokaro Steel City,
Dist: Bokaro 827003;
6. Bokaro Steel Workers Union INTUC Affiliation No. 2826 having
its registered office at III/B, Qtr No. 247, Bokaro Steel City, P.O
& P.S: Bokaro Steel City, Dist: Bokaro 827003 illegally
represented by Birendra Nath Choubey, son of Late R.N.
Choubey, resident of Qtr. No. 2-178, Sector 2/A, P.O & P.S
Bokaro Steel City, Dist: Bokaro, Jharkhand. ….Respondents
———
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
———
For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, Advocate
For the Resp.-State : Mr. Aditya Kumar, A.C. to Sr.S.C.-I
For the Resp. Nos.5&6 : Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Kumar Baibhav, Advocate
———
C.A.V. ON: 04/02/2025 PRONOUNCED ON: 28/04/2025
1. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
2. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 18.07.2024
(Annexure-12), passed by the Labour Court, Bokaro in Trade
1
2025:JHHC:12837
Union Appeal No. 1/2023, whereby the preliminary objection
raised by the petitioner was not considered and the same was
rejected on the ground that the issue involves a decision of both
question of fact and question of law, as such, the same shall be
considered at the time of final hearing of the appeal.
3. The brief facts of the case are that Bokaro Steel
Workers Union was registered by the Registrar, Trade Union of
undivided Bihar; however, the Registrar, Trade Union, Bihar in the
year 2017, cancelled the registration of 980 trade unions which
were active in the State of Jharkhand after reorganisation and
creation of the State of Jharkhand. Subsequently, the Labour
Department of the State of Jharkhand published an invitation for
getting those cancelled Trade Unions registered with State of
Jharkhand.
4. In response to that the Petitioner filed an application
along with relevant details of registration. Simultaneously, the 6th
Respondent also filed a separate application for re-registration
before the Registrar, Trade Union, Ranchi. Thus, two applications,
for re-registration of the same Bokaro Steel Workers Union, were
before the Registrar, Trade Union of Ranchi, one by the Petitioner
and one by the 6th Respondent.
The Registrar, Trade Union referred the matter to the
Deputy Labour Commissioner, Bokaro to enquire into the matter
and after getting the report form the Deputy Labour
Commissioner; the Registrar, Trade Union, after granting
2
2025:JHHC:12837
opportunity to all the parties, granted re-registration of Bokaro
Steel Workers Union headed by the Petitioner vide order dated
04.06.2021.
Thereafter, being aggrieved with the order dated
04.06.2021 of the Registrar, Trade Union, the 6th Respondent filed
a writ application before this Court being W.P. (C) No. 2690 of
2021 for quashing the letter dated 04.06.2021 issued by the
Registrar, Trade Union, Jharkhand whereby the said respondent
denied the application for registration submitted by 6th
Respondent on the ground that the name of 5th Respondent did
not find mention in the Form-B register.
5. The said writ application was finally heard by a
Coordinate Bench of this Court and disposed of by giving liberty to
the Petitioner (6th Respondent herein) to prefer an appeal in terms
of Section 11 of the Trade Union Act, 1926. Pursuant thereto; an
appeal was filed by the 6th respondent. In the said appeal filed
before the learned Labour Court, Bokaro, even the Petitioner filed
a written statement contending therein that Trade Union Appeal
No.01/2023 is not maintainable.
6. Subsequently, the Petitioner also filed an application to
hear the appeal on maintainability under Section 11 of the Trade
Union Act as the preliminary issue. The 6th respondent filed a
rejoinder to the said preliminary objection and finally the learned
Labour Court vide order dated 18.07.2024, has dismissed the said
application of this Petitioner to decide the maintainability of the
3
2025:JHHC:12837
case as preliminary issue by holding that the issue/objection
raised by the Petitioner involves a mixed question of fact and law
and as such, the facts and law raised through the petition dated
10.05.2024, will be considered at the time of final hearing of
appeal on merit. The said order has been made impugned before
this Court.
7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the
impugned order dated 18.07.2024 is bad in law in view of the fact
that the 6th Respondent is claiming itself to be Bokaro Steel
Workers Union represented by Shri B. N. Choubey. The learned
Labour Court did not appreciate that after the order dated
04.06.2021, the grant of registration certificate in favour of Bokaro
Steel Workers Union has never been challenged by the said Union
and the certificate of registration dated 15.06.2021 is still valid
and further the name of the Petitioner has also been incorporated
in Form-B Register which is a statutory one maintained by the
Registrar, Trade Union with regard to the name of the elected
Office Bearer of the said union for a period of three years in which
the name of the Petitioner was incorporated as General Secretary
of Bokaro Steel Workers Union.
8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner reiterated that
neither the certificate of registration dated 15.06.2021 has been
challenged by the 5th or 6th Respondent nor the incorporation of
name of the Petitioner as General Secretary and list of Office
Bearer has been assailed. As such, the impugned order has been
4
2025:JHHC:12837
passed without taking into consideration that the Misc. Appeal
No.01/2023 is not at all maintainable for the reason that it was
not a case of registration of Bokaro Steel Workers Union; rather
the main grievance of the 6th respondent was that his case by the
Registrar, Trade Union was rejected on the basis of documents
available on record.
9. He contended that the preliminary issue raised by the
Petitioner has been brushed aside by the learned Labour Court by
simply saying that it is a mixed question of fact and law; as such,
the Labour Court may be directed to decide the issue raised by the
Petitioner as a preliminary issue first i.e., whether the Misc.
Appeal No. 01/2023 is maintainable or not in its present form.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the 5th & 6th
Respondent submits that the 5th Respondent being General
Secretary of Bokaro Steel Workers Union though submitted same
and similar documents to the Inquiry Officer i.e., Deputy Labour
Commissioner, Bokaro as well as to the Registrar, Trade Union,
but surprisingly, the Registrar, Trade Union did not consider the
same and vide order dated 04.06.2021 rejected the application of
5th Respondent.
He further submits that it is true that application was
also filed by the Petitioner as well as 5th Respondent, but the
Registrar rejected the claim of 5th Respondent though he should
have appreciated that there are two factions of Bokaro Steel
Workers Union one led by the Petitioner and another led by the 5th
5
2025:JHHC:12837
Respondent. Since the order was not in accordance with law,
therefore, the 5th Respondent challenging order dated 04.06.2021
passed by the Registrar, Trade Union, preferred a writ application
being W.P.(C) No. 2690 of 2021 and the same was withdrawn by
the Petitioner (6th Respondent herein) in order to avail the
alternative remedy of appeal and accordingly, this Court had
granted liberty to the 6th Respondent to prefer an appeal and
pursuant to that order dated 10.07.2023 passed by this Court in
W.P.(C) No. 2690 of 2021, the 6th Respondent preferred an appeal
before the Labour Court through its General Secretary, who is 5th
Respondent herein, and the same was numbered as Trade Union
Appeal No. 01/2023.
11. Learned counsel further contended that though the
Petitioner who had raised a preliminary issue with regard to
maintainability of the appeal filed by the 5th respondent, but the
fact remains that this Petitioner who was 5th Respondent in
W.P.(C) No.2690 of 2021 has never raised any objection to the
liberty granted by this Court to the 5th Respondent to prefer
appeal before the learned Labour Court.
12. Learned counsel lastly submits that the learned
Labour Court, considering the law and materials available on
record, has rightly dismissed the application dated 10.05.2024
filed by the petitioner raising preliminary objection of
maintainability on the ground that the issue is both of law and
fact and the same will be considered at the time of final hearing;
6
2025:JHHC:12837
accordingly, the instant writ application may be dismissed with
cost.
13. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after
going through the documents available on record, it appears that
the registration of Bokaro Steel Workers Union, Bokaro, was made
in undivided Bihar under Trade Union Act, 1926; however, the
same was cancelled by the State of Bihar in 2017 and pursuant
thereto, the Government of Jharkhand issued a notice through
Law Department inviting the Trade Unions, whose registrations
were cancelled, to make fresh application for registration.
14. In response thereof, the Petitioner as well as the 6th
Respondent through its General Secretary namely, Birendra Nath
Choubey, filed an application along with relevant details for
registration. When two applications were filed, the Registrar, Trade
Union vide his letter dated 13.03.2020 and 04.08.2020 referred
the matter to the Deputy Labour Commissioner to inquire into the
matter and submit a report. Though, the Petitioner and the 5th
respondent both filed documents, but the Registrar, Trade Union
vide his order dated 04.06.2021 rejected the application of 6th
Respondent and vide Memo No. 566 dated 04.06.2021 allowed the
application of the Petitioner and granted registration of the Union.
Thus, it appears that the dispute is between two
factions of Bokaro Steel Workers Union, one led by the 5th
Respondent and another led by the Petitioner.
7
2025:JHHC:12837
15. It further transpires from record that after the
application of Petitioner was allowed by the Registrar, the 5th
Respondent challenged the said order dated 04.06.2021 before
this Court in W.P. (C) No. 2690 of 2021 and the same was
dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty to prefer an appeal in
terms of Section 11 of the Trade Union Act, 1926 and it is in
pursuance to the said order dated 10.07.2023 passed by this
Court in W.P. (C) No. 2690 of 2021, the 6th Respondent preferred
an appeal before the Labour Court through 5th Respondent and
the same was registered as Trade Union Appeal No. 1 of 2023.
16. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention here that when
the writ application was dismissed and the liberty was granted to
the 5th Respondent herein to file an appeal under Section 11 of the
Trade Union Act; the Petitioner herein, who was 5th respondent in
the said writ application never raised any objection to the said
liberty granted by this Court to the 5th Respondent to prefer an
appeal.
17. From record it further appears that the Petitioner,
apart from filing written statement, had also filed a preliminary
objection with regard to maintainability of the appeal. The learned
Labour Court, Bokaro vide order dated 18.07.2024, dismissed the
said application dated 10.05.2024 raising preliminary objection of
maintainability on the ground that the issues both of law and fact
raised by the Petitioner herein through the petition will be
considered at the time of final hearing of this appeal on merits and
8
2025:JHHC:12837
further adjourned the case on 05.08.2024 for final hearing of the
appeal. It appears that the order of the learned Labour Court has
been impugned in the instant application and vide order dated
23.08.2024 while issuing notice, the Coordinate Bench has
granted stay of the order passed by the Labour Court.
18. Thus, the sole issue which is to be decided in the
instant application is “whether the impugned order suffers from
any perversity while rejecting the application of the Petitioner to
decide the preliminary issue on maintainability ?”
To decide this issue, it is necessary to refer Section 8 of
Trade Union Act, 1926 which provides procedure before Registrar
for registration of Trade Unions. Section 11 of the Act provides for
a remedy of appeal to any person aggrieved by any refusal of the
Registrar to register a trade union or by the withdrawal or
cancellation of a certificate of registration. In the instant case the
6th respondent being aggrieved with the order dated 04.06.2021,
filed an appeal being T.U. Appeal No. 1/2023.
19. As stated hereinabove, the appeal was preferred by the
6th Respondent before the learned Labour Court after getting
liberty to pursue the alternative remedy and in the said Writ Court
the Petitioner herein, though he was 5th Respondent in the said
writ application; never raised any objection.
20. Section 11 (3) of the Act further provides that for the
purpose of an appeal under Sub-Section (1) an appellate court
9
2025:JHHC:12837
shall, so far as may be, follow the same procedure and have the
same powers as it follows and has been trying a suit under Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908.
21. It transpires from record that one petition dated
10.05.2024 has been filed by the Petitioner herein raising the
preliminary objection on maintainability of the appeal; however,
the Petitioner has neither challenged the jurisdiction of the Labour
Court nor mentions any law which creates a bar to the filing of
Trade Union Appeal No. 01/2023, which in view of Order 14 Rule
2 of CPC is the preliminary condition for framing and deciding a
preliminary issue.
22. By going through the impugned order, it clearly
transpires that while passing the order, the learned Labour Court
has rightly considered the settled law that when an issue is a
mixed issue of facts and law or issue of law depends upon
decision of fact then such issues cannot be tried as a preliminary
issue. In this regard reference may be made to the case of
Sathyanath and Another v. Sarojamani reported in (2022) 7
SCC 644 wherein at Para 17, 21 & 23 the Hon’ble Apex Court has
laid down the law as under:
“17. This Court in Ramesh B. Desai held that the principles enunciated in
S.S. Khanna still hold good and the Code confers no jurisdiction upon the
court to try a suit on mixed issues of law and fact as a preliminary issue
and where the decision on issue depends upon the question of fact, it cannot
be tried as a preliminary issue. The said finding arises from the provision of
Order 14 Rule 2 clauses (a) and (b). After the amendment, discretion has
been given to the court by the expression “may” used in sub-rule (2) to try the
issue relating to the jurisdiction of the court i.e. territorial and pecuniary
jurisdiction, or a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force
i.e. the bar to file a suit before the civil court such as under the Securitisation
and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest
Act, 2002 and numerous other laws particularly relating to land reforms.
10
2025:JHHC:12837
Hence, if Order 14 Rule 2 is read along with Order 12 Rule 5, the court is
expected to decide all the issues together unless the bar of jurisdiction of the
court or bar to the suit in terms of sub-rule (2) clauses (a) and (b) arises. The
intention to substitute Rule 2 is the speedy disposal of the lis on a question
which oust either the jurisdiction of the court or bars the plaintiff to sue
before the civil court.
21. The provisions of Order 14 Rule 2 are part of the procedural law, but
the fact remains that such procedural law had been enacted to ensure
expeditious disposal of the lis and in the event of setting aside of findings on
preliminary issue, the possibility of remand can be avoided, as was the
language prior to the unamended Order 14 Rule 2. If the issue is a mixed
issue of law and fact, or issue of law depends upon the decision of fact,
such issue cannot be tried as a preliminary issue. In other words,
preliminary issues can be those where no evidence is required and on the
basis of reading of the plaint or the applicable law, if the jurisdiction of the
court or the bar to the suit is made out, the court may decide such issues
with the sole objective for the expeditious decision. Thus, if the court lacks
jurisdiction or there is a statutory bar, such issue is required to be decided in
the first instance so that the process of civil court is not abused by the
litigants, who may approach the civil court to delay the proceedings on false
pretext.
23. The different judgments of the High Court referred to above are in
consonance with the principles laid down by this Court in Ramesh B. Desai
that not all issues of law can be decided as preliminary issues. Only those
issues of law can be decided as preliminary issues which fell within the
ambit of clause (a) relating to the “jurisdiction of the Court” and (b) which
deal with the “bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force”.
The reason to substitute Rule 2 is to avoid piecemeal trial, protracted
litigation and possibility of remand of the case, where the appellate court
differs with the decision of the trial court on the preliminary issues upon
which the trial court had decided.”
23. It is further evident from perusing the impugned order
that the learned Labour Court has also considered the averments
made in the petition dated 10.05.2024 and observed that neither
jurisdiction of the Labour Court has been challenged; nor the
appeal is barred under any law.
This Court cannot accept the contention of the
Petitioner that the preliminary issue on maintainability raised by
him should have been decided first; when the core issue involved
in the said appeal is as to which of the two rival factions being one
represented by 5th respondent and another by the Petitioner, is the
actual representative of Bokaro Steel Workers Union.
24. As a matter of fact, adjudication on this issue by the
11
2025:JHHC:12837
registrar by his order dated 04.06.2021 whereby he recognises one
faction and refuses to recognise another faction is beyond his
jurisdiction and power under provision of Trade Union Act. In this
regard, the law is well settled that the dispute between the two
faction groups of the Union as to who are the elected Office
Bearers of the Unions can only be decided by a suit in the Court of
competent jurisdiction and such dispute cannot be adjudicated by
the Registrar of the Trade Union.
25. As stated hereinabove, from bare perusal of the
impugned order, it is clear and apparent that there is a serious
dispute between the two Unions. Accordingly, there is no error
committed by the learned Labour Court in rejecting the petition
dated 10.05.2024 on the ground that the issue involved in the
said appeal is a mixed question of facts and law.
26. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands
dismissed. However, there is no order to cost. Pending IAs, if any,
also stands closed.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
vikas/-
A.F.R.
12
