1986 PLP 995 (PLC)

2. The petition was vehemently contested by the Registrar as well as two contestant rival trade unions of workers, who were subsequently allowed to be impleaded as parties. It was maintained that the 'disputed staff of Foremen, Assistant Foremen and Supervisors was rightly held to be covered by the definition of workers and the petition is frivolous. Both the parties produced their evidence.

3. I have heard the arguments from both sides and perused the record.

4. It appears that respondent No.l passed the impugned order suo motu in exercise of his powers under subsections (4) and (5) of section 22, I. R.O. which are reproduced below:‑

4. Every employer shall‑‑ (a) on being so required by the Registrar, submit a list of all workmen employed in the establishment excluding those whose period of employment in the establishment is less than three months and showing, in respect of each workman, his parentage, age, the section or department and the place in which he is employed, his ticket number and the date of his employment in the establishment; and (b) provide such facilities for verification of the lists submitted by him and the trade unions as the Registrar may require: Provided that, in computing the period of three months referred to in clause (a) in the case of a workman employed in a seasonal factory within the meaning of section 4 of the Factories Act, 1934 (XXV of 1934), the period during which he was employed in that factory during the preceding seasons shall also be taken into account. (5) the Registrar shall after verification of the list of voters in which shall be included the name of every workman whose period of employment as computed in accordance with subsection (4) is not less than three months and who is a member of any of the contesting trade unions and shall, at least four days prior to the date fixed for the Poll, send to each of the contesting trade unions a certified copy of the list of voters so prepared.

5. Whether or not the Foremen, Assistant Foremen and Supervisors serving in the petitioner Company fall within the definition of workers according to the nature of duties performed by them is a different matter but the first question which to my mind arises for consideration is if the respondent Registrar Trade Unions had at all the jurisdiction to decide this matter and that too suo motu. The combined reading of subsections (4) and (5) of section 22, I.R.O. makes it clear that the Registrar has the power of verification of lists of workers and the management is bound to furnish lists of workers but such power of verification is only restricted to verify if workers mentioned in the lists have a minimum service of three months and are members of any of the contesting trade unions. This verification is to be made with the help of the name of worker, his parentage, age, the section or department and the place in which he is employed, his ticket number and the date of his employment in the establishment. By no stretch of imagination, the power of verification of the Registrar under subsections (4) and (5) of section 22, I. R. O. is extended to determination by holding a judicial inquiry as to who is a workman and who is not. Moreover, the respondent Registrar also entered upon to decide this question suo motu without any aggrieved person agitating this matter before him. It may also be remarked here that the disputed members of the supervisory staff including Foremen, Assistant Foremen and the supervisors whose status as workers or non‑workers was in question before the respondent Registrar were neither party before him nor before this Court. It was, therefore, not within the domain of the respondent Registrar to decide intricate question of law as to who is a workman and who is not under these circumstances. Proper course of action for him was to defer the referendum and ask the aggrieved persons to get their status as a worker or non‑worker determined by the Labour Court which is a judicial forum to decide such question. The Registrar Trade Unions being only an executive authority under I. R.O. had the least jurisdiction to decide this judicial matter. The question now arises as to whether the petitioner can challenge the impugned order or not. It goes without saying that if the disputed members of the supervisory staff mentioned above are not workers, the petitioner was justified in not including their names in the list of workers but it has been made to include their names by an order without jurisdiction. It is a settled law that an order without jurisdiction is a void order and can be challenged by any one I am therefore of the view that the impugned order being without jurisdiction' is not maintainable.

6. As a sequel to my finding recorded above, I accept this petition and set aside the impugned order of Registrar Trade Unions. The disputed members of the supervisory staff may get their status as workmen or non‑workmen determined in accordance with law. A. E. Petition accepted.