'Executive Cannot Distort Legislation': Calcutta High Court Quashes Notice Debarring Retired Employees From Holding Trade Union Posts

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.”

The Court noted that the Registrar's direction barring retired employees was “totally inconsistent with the provisions of the 1926 Act.”

The Court remarked that “each and every word in the notice dated 08.04.2025 is in total contradiction to the existing provision of law” and that “the interpretation given by the Registrar of Trade Union is not only erroneous but also beyond his powers.”

Criticising the administrative overreach, Justice Dutt stated, “A piece of legislation is not for the executive to distort according to their whims to suit their purpose best known to them.”

The Court held that the constitution of office-bearers in both petitioner unions was in full compliance with Section 22(2) and its Explanation, as well as the Supreme Court's ruling in Bokajan Cement Corporation Employees' Union vs Cement Corporation of India Ltd.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed both writ petitions and quashed and set aside the notices issued by the Registrar of Trade Unions, West Bengal, holding them to be “beyond the scope of the provision of the Act and thus not in accordance with law.”

Mr. Purbayan Chakraborty, Mr. Deeptangshu Kar… Adv. for the petitioners