HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?A.F.R. Court No. - 10 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 49350 of 2011 Petitioner :- Subhash Dubey And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Rajeev Misra Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Rakesh Pandey Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
For the relief, which has been prayed for in the present writ petition i. e. quashing of the order dated 19.11.2010, petitioner had approached this Court earlier by means of Writ Petition No. 70773 of 2010. The writ petition was decided vide judgment and order dated 12.01.2011. The order passed by the Court is being quoted herein below:
"Petitioners before this Court claims to be office bearers of a registered trade union namely 'North Eastern Railway Employees Union'. They are aggrieved by the order dated 19.11.2010 whereunder the registered trade union has recognized the office bearers elected on 27.06.2001 and in their favour Form-J has been registered.
Counsel for the petitioner challenging the very authority of the respondents to hold the elections, submits that the elections of the year 2006 and 2008 were not recognized by the Registrar, Trade Unions and, therefore, any subsequent elections held are of no legal consequence. He further points out that in writ petition no. 60559 of 2006 (between the same parties), there was an injunction operating against both the parties to the petition to the effect that none of them shall act as office bearers of the Union nor shall operate the Bank account. Lastly it is submitted that Original Suit No. 1149 of 2005 is pending before the Trial Court in respect of the earlier elections. Such suit is referable to an order passed by the Division Bench of this Court dated 08.08.2005 passed in writ petition no. 32531 of 2005 and no. 49682 of 2004. The Division Bench having regard to the nature as well as long standing dispute pertaining to the office bearers of the Union, held that suit is the proper remedy.
This Court is not called upon to enter into any issues which have been raised by means of the present writ petition. Suffice is to record that earlier writ petition no. 60559 of 2006 has been decided today by the Court and the Suit has been directed to be decided within four months. It is further not in dispute that the present petitioner and the respondents are a party to the said suit proceedings. It is open to either of the parties to file such further application for injunction in the suit itself, as they may be advised.
This Court feels that any interference in the present proceedings would only result in complicating the decision of the suit itself which has been directed to be decided in a time bound manner.
In view of the aforesaid the present writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file such interim injunction application, as he is advised, in Suit No. 1149 of 2005. The Trial Court shall pass orders on such interim injunction application within 15 days thereafter, strictly in accordance with law."
What has happened subsequent to the passing of the said order is that the plaintiffs of suit no. 1194 of 2005 have withdrawn their suit. According to the petitioner the direction issued by this Court herein above, qua the competence of the rival office bearers to hold the elections of the Trade Union which had to be adjudicated in the said suit of 2005, has now become a piece of paper, inasmuch as with the withdrawal of the suit no issues can now be determined.
The contention so raised on behalf of the petitioner appears to be attractive on the fact of it. However, it is pointed out by the counsel for the respondent that the petitioner himself has filed original suit no. 1072 of 2007 challenging the order of the Deputy Labour Commissioner dated 07.07.2006 and dated 30.12.2006, whereby the elections set up by the present petitioner of the office bearers of the same trade union were refused recognition. It has rightly been pointed out that what could be done in the suit filed by the respondents, namely suit no. 1194 of 2005, can now be examined at the instance of the petitioner in suit no. 1072 of 2007.
In reply Sri Rajeev Mishra, counsel for the petitioner submits that with the dismissal of suit no. 1194 of 2005, so far as the respondent office bearers are concerned, they cease to have any right to hold the office as also to hold any future elections, as the order of the Deputy Labour Commissioner disapproving their elections of the year 2005 now stands on record. He submits that all future elections held, which have been granted recognition by Deputy Labour Commissioner under the order dated 19.11.2010 must therefore fall to ground on the said short ground.
There may be some substance in the argument advanced by Sri Rajeev Mishra, inasmuch as right to hold subsequent elections is dependent upon the legality of the elections held earlier. In case an office bearer is found to have not been validly elected under an order of the competent authority, he will cease to have any legal right to hold future elections.
However, this Court is not required to record any finding in the matter at this stage of the proceedings, inasmuch as that which had to be examined in suit no. 1194 of 2005 can now be agitated and got decided by the present petitioner in his original suit no. 1072 of 2007.
Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to make an application for temporary injunction in view of subsequent development, namely withdrawal of suit no. 1194 of 2005, in his pending suit no. 1072 of 2007 within two weeks from today along with certified copy of this order. If such application is filed, the Court concerned is requested to decide the same after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, preferably within two weeks thereafter. No unnecessary adjournment shall be granted to either of the parties.
It is further directed that the Court concerned will endeavour to decide the suit itself finally in accordance with law at the earliest possible, in any case within six months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before it.
Order Date :- 29.9.2011 Pkb/