Case Background
The petitioner is a Chief Manager in the State Bank of India, posted at the Stressed Assets Management Branch, J.C. Road, Patna. He is also a member of the SBI Officers’ Association, Patna Circle, which is registered under the Trade Union Act, 1926.
The Association had framed its bye-laws in 1998. In 2021, elections were due for the Central Committee of the Association for the term 2021–2024. From the documents filed with the writ petition, the election programme titled “Triellial General Election- 2021-2024” was notified on 01.08.2021.
Under this programme, the last date for withdrawal of nominations was fixed as 15.09.2021. The list of contestants was also to be published on 15.09.2021. The date of polling was fixed as 31.10.2021.
The petitioner filed his nomination and participated in the process as a contestant for the Central Committee. However, after participating in the election process, he approached the Patna High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 19201 of 2021 on 30.10.2021. The writ petition was registered on 16.11.2021.
In the cause title, the petitioner impleaded the State Bank of India, some members of the election committee and an office bearer of the Association as private respondents, and the Registrar/Additional Registrar, Shramik Sangh (Labour Union), Government of Bihar as respondent no. 6. No other State or public authority was made a party.
After registration, the petitioner made an e-mentioning on 14.12.2021 for urgent hearing. The request was accepted and the matter was listed on 17.12.2021. At the very outset, the Division Bench asked the petitioner’s senior counsel to first satisfy the Court on the question of maintainability of the writ petition, since it involved election disputes within a private Association that did not perform any public function.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The heart of the petitioner’s case was not a direct challenge to any specific election result. Instead, he attacked certain clauses of the Association’s bye-laws and the manner in which the election committee had been constituted and was functioning.
Through his reliefs, the petitioner asked the Court to declare that Clause 14(ii) of the bye-laws of the SBI Officers’ Association, Patna Circle, was opposed to the principle of free and fair election and therefore needed amendment. His plea was that the bye-laws should be amended in line with what he considered settled principles of law for holding elections of the Central Committee.
He further sought a declaration that any member intending to contest an upcoming election should not participate in the selection of members of the election committee. He also asked that the General Secretary of the outgoing Central Committee, if contesting the next election, should not be allowed to publish the election programme under his own signature.
The petitioner also targeted Clause 14(XXI) of the bye-laws. That clause allows the election committee, for the purpose of scrutiny of ballot papers, to nominate an independent observer. The petitioner wanted a declaration that such nomination should not be done in consultation with a member of the outgoing Central Committee, including the General Secretary, if that person intended to contest the election.
Another relief sought was that the selection of the present election committee should be declared illegal and mala fide. According to the petitioner, respondent no. 5, who was the General Secretary of the Central Committee and was contesting the election, had participated in the selection of three members of the election committee (respondent nos. 2–4) and had published the election programme under his signature.
Lastly, the petitioner wanted a declaration that during counting of ballot papers, candidates or their authorised representatives should be allowed to be present before any candidate was certified as elected.
A copy of the bye-laws, filed as Annexure-1, showed that they had been framed in 1998. The Court noted that the petitioner had not raised any grievance about the legality or correctness of these bye-law provisions before any forum, nor before filing the writ petition. This delay was especially significant because he had already participated in the election process under the same bye-laws.
The Court also recorded that, as seen from the writ petition and an interlocutory application (I.A. 1 of 2021), the petitioner had levelled various allegations against private respondents. However, he did not seek any specific direction against the State Bank of India or against the Registrar/Additional Registrar, Shramik Sangh (Labour Union), Government of Bihar, who alone could be treated as “State” within Article 12 of the Constitution.
On maintainability, learned senior counsel for the petitioner argued that since there was no alternative statutory remedy against irregularities allegedly committed by the private respondents, the writ petition was maintainable. He relied on the Supreme Court decision in Maharashtra Chess Association vs. Union of India and others, reported in (2020) 13 SCC 285, and on a Division Bench judgment of the Patna High Court in Mukund Ram Tanti vs. S.I. Raza, Registrar, Trade Unions, Bihar, Patna and others (AIR 1962 Patna 338).
In response, counsel for the State Bank of India relied on another Division Bench decision of the Patna High Court in Bokaro Steel Workers Union and another vs. State of Bihar and others, reported in 1995(1) PLJR 400. In that judgment, the Court, after considering Mukund Ram Tanti, had held that in the absence of any provision in the Trade Unions Act regarding election disputes, such disputes could only be resolved by filing a civil suit.
The Division Bench in the present case examined Mukund Ram Tanti and found that it did not support the petitioner’s stand. In Mukund Ram Tanti, the issue was the jurisdiction of the Registrar of Trade Unions. The Court had held that the Registrar could enquire into the legality of the election of office-bearers only to the limited extent needed to maintain a proper register of office-bearers under Section 8 of the Act. The Registrar’s decision could not create or take away any substantive rights, nor could he direct the Government or an employer to recognise particular office-bearers or conduct elections.
These conclusions from Mukund Ram Tanti were summarised and developed in Bokaro Steel Workers Union. That later decision made it clear that, because the Trade Unions Act contained no specific provision to resolve internal election disputes, such disputes had to be settled by bringing a civil suit before a competent Civil Court. The Division Bench in the present case quoted paragraph 22 of Bokaro Steel Workers Union, where it was held, among other things, that:
- the Registrar’s enquiry was only for updating the register under Section 8,
- he could not confer or divest lawful rights,
- he could not direct conduct of elections, and
- in the absence of statutory provision, disputes of this kind could be resolved only by a civil suit.
The Bench also noted that High Courts of Madras and Rajasthan had taken a similar view. It referred to K.S.S. Kowshik vs. State of India (WP No. 18397 of 2016, decided on 10.06.2016) and O.P. Gupta vs. Union of India and others, decided on 14.09.2000, reported in (2001) ILJR 832 Raj. These decisions held that writ petitions under Article 226 challenging elections in associations registered under the Trade Unions Act were not maintainable. The Patna High Court expressly concurred with that opinion.
The Court then looked at the Association’s own bye-laws. Clause 17 provided a mechanism for dispute redressal concerning any of the bye-law provisions. Clause 24 allowed the Association to amend, alter, replace, rescind or add to the bye-laws at any time by passing a suitable resolution by a majority of members present in the General Council and/or Special General Meeting, or through a referendum.
Against this background, the Bench considered the Supreme Court judgment in Maharashtra Chess Association cited by the petitioner. It noted that this decision arose in an entirely different context. In that case, a clause in the Federation’s constitution restricted institution of suits or legal action against the Federation to courts at Chennai. The High Court had declined jurisdiction solely on this ouster clause. The Supreme Court held that, in exercising its writ jurisdiction, a High Court should consider the matter holistically and not treat such a clause as completely ousting writ jurisdiction, since Article 226 is a discretionary and constitutional remedy.
The Patna High Court held that Maharashtra Chess Association did not help the petitioner. Here, the question was not about an ouster clause or territorial jurisdiction, but about the very nature of the dispute. The present dispute concerned internal election matters of a private Association governed by its bye-laws, and no public function was involved. Such a dispute lay, in the Court’s view, purely in the realm of private law.
The Bench emphasised that the elections were to be conducted under bye-laws which themselves could be amended democratically by majority decision in the General Council or Special General Meeting or by referendum. The democratic design of the union’s internal governance could not be bypassed by inviting the Court, under Article 226, to rewrite or strike down bye-laws at the instance of one contestant.
The petitioner had also made allegations of unfair means and attempts to subvert the democratic process. The Court held that these were disputed questions of fact, which could not conveniently be adjudicated in a writ proceeding.
In the Court’s opinion, if the petitioner was aggrieved by any term of the bye-laws, he was required to use the mechanisms available within those bye-laws for their amendment. Alternatively, sufficient remedy was available through a civil suit, as recognised in Bokaro Steel Workers Union.
Therefore, considering the facts of the case and the binding Division Bench precedent in Bokaro Steel Workers Union, the Court held that the writ petition under Article 226 was misconceived and not maintainable. The application was accordingly dismissed on 21.12.2021.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment sends a clear message to employees’ unions and associations registered under the Trade Union Act. Internal election disputes, complaints about bye-laws, or grievances against election committees of such private bodies generally cannot be resolved through writ petitions in the High Court.
Members who feel elections are unfair must, first, use the remedies given in their own union’s bye-laws. If they still feel wronged, they may have to approach the civil court through a regular suit. Writ jurisdiction is reserved for public law issues and for actions of the State or bodies performing public functions, not for purely internal fights within private associations.
For bank officers and other union members, this ruling highlights the importance of understanding and actively participating in framing and amending their association bye-laws, instead of expecting the High Court to step in every time there is a dispute.
Legal Issues and Answers
-
Issue: Can a member of a trade union registered under the Trade Union Act, 1926, challenge election bye-laws and election process of the union directly in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, when the union is a private body not performing public functions?
Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that such disputes lie in the realm of private law and, in the absence of statutory provisions in the Trade Unions Act, must be resolved using the union’s internal mechanisms or by filing a civil suit. A writ petition is not maintainable. -
Issue: Does the Supreme Court decision in Maharashtra Chess Association vs. Union of India permit the High Court to entertain such a writ petition despite it involving private association election disputes?
Answer: No. The Court held that Maharashtra Chess Association was delivered in a different context, dealing with an ouster clause on territorial jurisdiction. It does not justify invoking writ jurisdiction for purely private election disputes of a trade union. -
Issue: What role can the Registrar of Trade Unions play in resolving union election disputes?
Answer: As clarified through Mukund Ram Tanti and Bokaro Steel Workers Union, the Registrar may enquire into elections only to maintain and update the statutory register of office-bearers under Section 8 of the Trade Unions Act. The Registrar cannot decide substantive rights, direct conduct of elections, or confer recognition on any faction as duly elected office-bearers.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Maharashtra Chess Association vs. Union of India and others, (2020) 13 SCC 285
- Mukund Ram Tanti vs. S.I. Raza, Registrar, Trade Unions, Bihar, Patna and others, AIR 1962 Patna 338
- Bokaro Steel Workers Union and another vs. State of Bihar and others, 1995(1) PLJR 400
- K.S.S. Kowshik vs. State of India, WP No. 18397 of 2016, Madras High Court, decided on 10.06.2016
- O.P. Gupta vs. Union of India and others, (2001) ILJR 832 Raj, Rajasthan High Court, decided on 14.09.2000
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 19201 of 2021
Case Title: Bipin Kumar Singh vs. State Bank of India and others
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Madhuresh Prasad
Date of Judgment: 21.12.2021
Citation: 2022(1) PLJR 373
Advocates for the Petitioner: Mr. Umesh Prasad Singh, Senior Advocate; Mr. Rakesh Kumar; Mr. Rajni Kant Singh; Mr. Kumar Saurav; Mr. Vaibhav Veer Shankar
Advocates for the Respondents: Mr. Amish Kumar; Mr. Apurv Harsh; Mr. Mani Tripurari; Mr. Sujit Kumar
Nature of the Case: Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging trade union election bye-laws and election process
Link to the Judgment: Click here to access the official Patna High Court judgment
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
