Indian National Trade Union Congress vs Union Of India & Ors.

Court
Delhi High Court

$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 447/2017 and CM APPL. 40558/2022, CM APPL.
48209/2022, CM APPL. 48775/2023, CM APPL. 42179/2024

Date of Decision: 23.04.2026
IN THE MATTER OF :

INDIAN NATIONAL TRADE UNION CONGRESS
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Senior Advocate
with Ms. Mayuri Raghuvanshi, Mr.
Vyom Raghuvanshi, Ms. Akanksha
Rathore, Mr. Rohan Mandal and Mr.
Mohit Garg, Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
.....Respondent
Through: Ms. Pratima N Lakra CGSC with Mr
Shailendra Kumar Mishra, Ms
Upanita, Advocates for R-1.
Mr. Nishant gautam, GCSC, Mr.
Vineet Negi, Ms. Kavya Shukla, Mr.
Vibhav V. Nath, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Neeraj Shekhar Advocate, Mrs.
Kshama Sharma Advocate, Mr.
Ritwik Prasad Advocate for R-5.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
J U D G E M E N T

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)

Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.04.2026
13:22:13
W.P.(C) 447/2017 Page 1 of 4

1. The petition is for followings reliefs:
i) Issue a writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) quashing the letter
dated 04.01.2017 issued by the Ministry of Labour and
Employment, Government of India.
ii) Pass any such order or further orders that tis Hon’ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

2. The petitioner, Indian National Trade Union Congress (hereinafter
“INTUC”) is a Central Trade Union registered with the Registrar of Trade
Unions, Delhi under the Trade Union Act, 1926. The respondent no. 1 is
Ministry of Labour and Employment. The respondent no. 2 is Chief Labour
Commissioner (Central) (hereinafter “CLC(C)”) and respondent no. 3 is
Registrar of Trade Union.
3. The petitioner - INTUC claims to be one of the major trade unions
representing workmen across various sectors and has been participating in
various tripartite labour bodies and consultative mechanisms constituted by
the Government of India.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that INTUC has been recognized by the
respondent authorities and has been invited to nominate representatives to
various statutory and advisory bodies, including participation in the Indian
Labour Conference, Standing Labour Conference, and other committees
under labour laws.
5. It appears that pursuant to certain inter se disputes amongst rival
factions claiming leadership of petitioner - INTUC, various civil suits and
proceedings came to be instituted before competent Courts. It is, however,
the case of the petitioner that notwithstanding such disputes, the respondent
authorities continued to recognize and engage with the faction led by Dr. G.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.04.2026
13:22:13
W.P.(C) 447/2017 Page 2 of 4

Sanjeeva Reddy, including by seeking nominations and permitting
participation in official deliberations up to December, 2016.
6. Subsequently, respondent no.1 – Ministry issued a letter dated
04.01.2017 (hereinafter “impugned letter”) whereby, petitioner was
excluded from being represented in meetings convened by respondent no. 1
– Ministry and was further denied consideration for nomination to various
tripartite bodies.
7. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the stand of the
respondent-Ministry, as reflected in paragraph 7 of its counter- affidavit
dated 10.07.2017, clearly indicates that the process of General Verification
of Central Trade Union Organisations (hereinafter “CTUOs”) remains
unaffected by the impugned letter. Paragraph no. 7 of the counter- affidavit
reads as under:
7.That however, the stand of the Ministry is very clear with respect to the
process of General Verification of CTUOs, which is unaffected by the above
decision. The Standing Committee on general verification comprising of
representative of all CTUO's and headed by CLC(C) found the claim
submitted by the INTUC fraction led by Dr. G. Sanjeeva Reddy prime facie
is eligible for verification, while rejecting similar claims of other factions.
Moreover, there is no directive from either Allahabad High Court or Delhi
High Court as against the decision of the Standing Committee to restrict
Sanjeeva Reddy group of INTUC.

8. A bare perusal of the paragraph no. 7 evidently indicates that the
respondent - Ministry itself acknowledges that the process of General
Verification of CTUOs remains unaffected by the impugned letter. It further
emerges that the claim of the petitioner - INTUC faction led by Dr. G.
Sanjeeva Reddy has been found prima facie eligible for verification by the
competent Standing Committee.
9. Learned Counsel for respondent no.1 – Ministry also takes the stand
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.04.2026
13:22:13
W.P.(C) 447/2017 Page 3 of 4

that there is no directive from either Allahabad High Court or Delhi High
Court as against the decision of the Standing Committee to restrict Dr. G.
Sanjeeva Reddy group of petitioner - INTUC.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the Union of India submits that certain
litigations relating to internal disputes of the petitioner are pending.
However, upon a query from this Court, it is conceded that no restraint order
is operating in any of the said proceedings.
11. The Court thus, finds, that the basis for excluding the petitioner, as
reflected in the impugned letter does not survive, particularly when (i) the
verification process is stated to be unaffected, and (ii) no judicial order
restraining the petitioner is in force.
12. In view of the aforenoted position, the respondent no. 1 –
Ministry/concerned authority will have to review the impugned letter and to
pass appropriate order in accordance with law.
13. The respondent - Union of India, however, must take the appropriate
decision within eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
14. With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed of.
15. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open.

(PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV)
JUDGE
APRIL 23, 2026/SS


Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.04.2026
13:22:13
W.P.(C) 447/2017 Page 4 of 4