Executive Cannot Distort Legislation To Suit Its Whims: Calcutta HC Quashes Registrar’s Notice Under Section 22(2) Debarring Retired Employees From Union Posts
Sanchayita Lahkar
The Calcutta High Court, Single Bench of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) has quashed the notices dated April 8, May 7, and May 29, 2025, issued by the Registrar of Trade Unions, West Bengal, which debarred retired employees from holding positions in registered trade unions. The Court held that the impugned directions were in “complete violation of the said provision of the Act.” The petitions, brought by two workers’ unions representing employees of industrial establishments, questioned the Registrar’s authority to restrict retired members from union posts. Emphasizing that Section 22(2) of the Trade Unions Act, 1926, expressly permits retired or retrenched employees to serve as office-bearers, the Court held that the Registrar’s notices were beyond his jurisdiction and contrary to statutory provisions.
The writ petitions were filed challenging three communications issued by the Registrar of Trade Unions, West Bengal—dated 08.04.2025, 07.05.2025, and 29.05.2025. The petitioners stated that the first petitioner in each matter is a registered trade union under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, while the other petitioners are elected office-bearers, including serving and retired employees.
The unions asserted that they had long included retired employees as office-bearers and that elections had been regularly conducted as per law. They challenged the April 2025 notice whereby the Registrar stated that persons not in employment could not continue as, or be elected to posts such as Secretary, Treasurer, Chief Executive Officer, or Chief Financial Officer. The unions further claimed that the notice relied on an erroneous interpretation of Section 22(2) of the Trade Unions Act, 1926.
The petitioners also referred to an alleged representation against them in which signatures were found to be forged, leading to a complaint to the local police station and intimation to the Registrar. Despite being informed of the alleged falsity, the Registrar continued issuing further communications in May 2025, asking the union to rectify its office-bearer positions.
The unions stated that their office-bearer composition complied with statutory proportions under Section 22(2). In one petition, 51 office-bearers included 7 retired employees and 1 outsider; in the other, 19 office-bearers included 6 retired employees and 4 outsiders. The State contended that only employees “actually engaged” in the establishment should hold key posts and relied on definitions from the Trade Unions Act and Industrial Disputes Act.
The dispute centred on whether retired employees could hold key posts and whether the Registrar had the authority to interpret the Act in the manner reflected in the impugned notices. Only the statutory provisions and facts presented in the judgment formed the basis of the controversy.
The Court recorded that Section 22(2) of the Trade Unions Act expressly contains an “Explanation… that an employee who has retired or has been retrenched shall not be construed as outsider for the purpose of holding an office in a Trade Union.” It noted that the Registrar’s notice was “in complete violation of the said provision of the Act.”
The Court stated that “as to how did the Registrar of Trade Union acquire the authority to put in such wrong interpretation in a notice on behalf of the government is best known to him.” It recorded that the notice was “in total contradiction to the existing provision of law.”
It observed that the petitioners’ office-bearer composition complied with the statutory requirements: “the constitution of the office bearers of the union is in due compliance of sub-section 2 of Section 22 and its ‘Explanation’ of the Trade Unions Act.” The Court noted that the respondents did not dispute the numerical composition of the unions’ office-bearers.
The court observed that “the explanation to sub-section (2) of Section 22 of the Trade Unions Act is very clear that an employee who has retired or has been retrenched shall not be construed as an outsider for the purpose of holding an office in a trade union.”
It stated that “the interpretation given by the Registrar of Trade Union is not only erroneous but also beyond his powers.” It further recorded that “a piece of legislation is not for the executive to distort according to their whims to suit their purpose best known to them.”
Regarding the respondents’ position, the Court noted their contention that the object of the explanation could not be used to widen the section, but concluded that the statutory language was explicit. The Court stated that neither the 1926 Act nor the unions’ constitutions prohibit retired employees from holding office and that the Registrar’s view had no legal foundation.
The Court also recorded that the Registrar’s assertion that retired employees were “debarred” contradicted the Act: “The notice dated 08.04.2025 stating that retired employees are debarred is beyond the scope of the provision of the Act and thus not in accordance with law.”
The Court directed that “the writ petitions are thus allowed. The notice dated 08.04.2025, 07.05.2025 and 29.05.2025 issued by the Registrar of Trade Unions, West Bengal, are hereby quashed and set aside. All connected application, if any, stands disposed of.” The Court stated that “Interim order, if any, stands vacated.”
Advocates Representing The Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Soumya Majumdar, Senior Advocate; Ms. Sanjukta Dutta; Mr. Purbayan Chakraborty; Mr. Deeptangshu Kar
For the Respondents: Mr. Ushanath Banerjee, Senior Advocate; Mr. Biswabrata Basu Mallick, AGP; Ms. Parna Roy Choudhury; Mr. Debangshu Dinda
Case Title: CESC Sramik Karmachari Union & Ors. vs State of West Bengal & Anr.; Federal Chatkal Mazdoor Union & Anr. vs State of West Bengal & Anr.
Case Number: WPA 13542 of 2025; WPA 19086 of 2025
Bench: Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)
