Bombay High Court
Koyal Shramik Sabha Nagpur ... vs Kisan S/O Late Mangal Ghubde And ... on 6 December, 2016
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
1
wp6303.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.6303 OF 2016
1. Koyla Shramik Sabha,
Regd. No.NGP-977, Office : 5,
Kharabe Building, New Cotton
Market, Ghat Road, Nagpur-18,
Through its President
Shri Umashankar G. Singh.
2. Umashankar s/o Gupteshwarprasad
Singh,
Aged about 55 years,
Occupation : Service,
President of Koyla Shramik Sabha,
Regd. No.NGP-977, Office : 5,
Kharabe Building, New Cotton
Market, Ghat Road,
Nagpur-18. ... Petitioners
Versus
1. Kisan s/o Late Mangal Ghubde,
Aged about Major,
Occupation : Not Known,
R/o C/o Shri Deepak Choudhari,
199-C, K.T. Nagar, Katol Road,
Nagpur.
::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2016 01:01:56 :::
2
wp6303.16.odt
2. Dashrath s/o Janbaji Khandre,
Aged about Major,
Occupation : Not Known,
R/o C/o Shri Deepak Choudhari,
199-C, K.T. Nagar, Katol Road,
Nagpur.
3. Shri Jayanarayan Pande,
Aged about 55 years,
Occupation : Business,
R/o Tilak Nagar, Wani,
District Yavatmal.
4. Rajkumar Parasar,
Aged about 67 years,
Occupation : Retired,
R/o Dumaria No.4, Tah. Junardeo,
Dist. Chindwara (M.P.).
5. Anand Pratap s/o Rajroop Singh,
Aged about 49 years,
Occupation : Service,
R/o B-88, Near Harihar Mandir,
WCL Colony, WCL Umred,
District Nagpur.
6. Shri Allaudin Khan,
Aged about 55 years,
Occupation : Service,
R/o PTC Road, Near Madina Masjid,
At Post Parasiya,
Dist. Chindwara.
::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2016 01:01:56 :::
3
wp6303.16.odt
7. Shri Rajeshwar Karne,
Aged about 53 years,
Occupation : Service,
R/o Area Hospital, Mohan Ambada
Colliery, Tah. Junardeo (M.P.),
District Chindwara.
8. Shri Birendra Mishra,
Aged about 58 years,
Occupation : Service,
R/o B-31, Urjagram, WCL Colony,
Tadali, Chandrapur.
9. Shri Shiv Kumar Yadav,
Aged about 45 years,
Occupation : Business,
Jalalpur-Nagpur Road, Kandri,
Tah. Parseoni, Dist. Nagpur.
10. Shri Rajpat Chauhan,
Aged about 59 years,
Occupation : Service,
Ghorawari WCL Colony, Jharna
Ghorawari Colliery,
Tah. Junardeo,
Dist. Chindwara.
11. Shri Sunil Pali,
Aged about 43 years,
Occupation : Service,
R/o Tekari Township,
WCL Colony,
Tah. Parseoni, Nagpur.
::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2016 01:01:56 :::
4
wp6303.16.odt
12. Shri Baldeo Singh,
Aged about 56 years,
Occupation : Service,
R/o Mines Quarter,
WCL Indira Nagar Colony,
Ghugus, Chandrapur.
13. Shri Shafi Siddique,
Aged about 50 years,
Occupation : Service,
R/o Koyla Shramik Sabha
Shanti, Tah. Damua,
Dist. Chindwara.
14. Shri Ramashankar Tiwari,
Aged about 60 years,
Occupation : Retired,
R/o Koyla Shramik Sabha,
Purana Bazaar, Patharkheda,
Betul (M.P.).
15. Shri Bandu Chandekar,
Aged about 49 years,
Occupation : Service,
R/o Totewar Nagar, Pragati Colony,
Wani, Dist. Yavatmal.
16. Western Coalfields Limited,
Coal Estate, Seminary Hills,
Civil Lines, Nagpur,
Through its Chairman-cum-
Managing Director.
::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2016 01:01:56 :::
5
wp6303.16.odt
17. Nathulal Pandey,
President, HMS,
Hind Khadan Mazdoor Federation,
R/o 1864, Wright Town,
Jabalpur (M.P.).
18. Koyla Shramik Sabha
(Regd. No.NGP/977),
Near Mahakali Mandir,
Chandrapur,
Through its General Secretary.
19. Francis Prakashrao Dara,
Aged about 41 years,
Occupation : Service,
R/o Qtr. No.B-36, WCL, DRC
No.5 Colony, Tirthrup Nagar,
Tukum, Chandrapur.
20. Amarnath Ramchandra Yadav,
Aged about 50 years,
Occupation : Service,
Mahakali Colony, Qtr.No.M-20,
Chandrapur.
21. Mahagi Haridwar Yadav,
Aged about 47 years,
Occupation : Service,
Qtr.No.O-2, CRC Minor Qtrs.,
Chandrapur.
22. Prakash Dudharam Shende,
Aged about 55 years,
Occupation : Service,
R/o Mahakali Colony, Qtrs.No.B-7,
::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2016 01:01:56 :::
6
wp6303.16.odt
Chandrapur.
23. Deepak Motilal Jaiswal,
Aged about 48 years,
Occupation : Service,
Qtr. MQ-482, Ram Nagar,
Ghuggus, Chandrapur.
24. Ramchandra Chandrabhan Yadavn,
Aged about 45 years,
Occupation : Service,
Ballarpur, Dist. Chandrapur.
25. Sangram Ramlaxman Singh,
Aged about 56 years,
Occupation : Service,
Qtr. No.M-121, Post Ashti,
Tah. Rajura, Dist. Chandrapur.
26. Sanjay Singh,
Aged about 51 years,
Occupation : Service,
Type II, Qtr. No.3, At Shobhapur
Colony, WCL, Patherkheda,
Dist. Betul.
27. Brijesh Anirudha Singh,
Aged about 50 years,
Occupation : Service,
Type II, Qtr. No.31, WCL Sellawara
Colony, Post Khaperkheda,
Dist. Nagpur.
::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2016 01:01:56 :::
7
wp6303.16.odt
28. Sudarshan Ramdulare Gupta,
Aged about 59 years,
Occupation : Service,
Qtr. No.49-DM, Hawamahal,
Police Station Khaperkheda,
Dist. Nagpur.
29. Sunil Mahadeorao Dhabale,
Aged about 50 years,
Occupation : Service,
Qtr. No.1B-101, WCL Umred Colony,
Umred, Dist. Nagpur.
30. Sher Ali Allaudin,
Aged about 59 years,
Occupation : Service,
Qtr. No.2/1, Patansawangi,
Sadbhavna Colony, Saoner,
Dist. Nagpur.
31. Rajeshkumar Asheswar Mishra,
Aged about 44 years,
Occupation : Service,
Qtr. No.MQ-463, Bhalar Township,
Post Bhalar, Wani, Dist. Yavatmal.
32. Sanjay Disgambar Badwaik,
Aged about 53 years,
Occupation : Service,
R/o Bharwapur Ward, Bhangaram
Mandir Road, Near Pande Cable
House, Chandrapur.
::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2016 01:01:56 :::
8
wp6303.16.odt
33. Kapildev Singh Anandi Singh,
Aged about 50 years,
Occupation : Service,
R/o WCL, Patherkheda Hosp Colony,
Betul.
34. Pyarelal Sahebrao Pande,
Aged about 52 years,
Qtr. No.B-139, Sasti Town,
Rajura, Chandrapur.
35.
Datta Gajananrao Kombe,
Aged about 48 years,
R/o Kunbi Society, Goutam Ward,
Bhadrawati, Dist. Chandrapur.
36. Anil Yellayya Morpaka,
Aged about 49 years,
Ramnagar, Ghuggus, Chandrapur.
37. Shailendra Jagdish Kahar,
Bala Township, Post Bhalar,
Tq. Wani, Dist. Yavatmal.
38. The Member,
Industrial Court, Civil Lines,
Nagpur.
39. Deputy Registrar of Trade Unions,
Nagpur, Office of the Additional
Commissioner of Labour, 4th Floor,
New Administrative Building No.2,
Civil Lines, Nagpur-01. ... Respondents
::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2016 01:01:56 :::
9
wp6303.16.odt
Shri S.P. Dharmadhikari, Senior Advocate, assisted by
Shri V.P. Marpakwar, Advocate for Petitioners.
Shri S.D. Thakur, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2/Caveators.
Shri Y.V. Dharashivkar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 to 15 and 17
to 37.
Shri D.S. Thakur, Advocate for Respondent No.18.
CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J.
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 1ST DECEMBER, 2016
DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 6TH DECEMBER, 2016
JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Respective counsels waive service for the
respondents. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels
appearing for the parties.
2. This writ petition challenges the interim order
dated 4-10-2016 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court
No.4, Nagpur, in Application (T.U.) No.01 of 2015 filed under
Section 28-1A of the Trade Unions Act, 1926. The Industrial Court
wp6303.16.odt
has allowed the application and directed the employer-Western
Coalfields Limited, Nagpur to call new elected office bearers
enlisted under Annexure-A to the Consent Certificate
dated 27-8-2015 while finalization of process of membership in the
year 2016 and to issue them stamped receipt book to enable Koyla
Shramik Sabha, the Trade Union, to enroll the membership for the
year 2016. The Industrial Court has restrained the petitioners along
with other office bearers of the said Union from acting and posing
as President, General Secretary, Secretary, and other Office bearers
of the Union and withdrawing any amount from any Bank Account
of the Union. The application under Section 28-1A of the Trade
Unions Act is pending for final adjudication before the Industrial
Court.
3. The dispute pertains to the management of the Trade
Union, i.e. Koyla Shramik Sabha, bearing NGP/977 at Nagpur and
operating in the establishment of Western Coalfields Limited in the
State of Maharashtra as well as Madhya Pradesh. There is no
wp6303.16.odt
dispute that as per the Constitution of the Union, fourteen Office
bearers are required to be elected, consisting of one President, one
Working President, one Senior Vice President, four other Vice
Presidents, one General Secretary, one Joint General Secretary, one
Treasurer, four Organizational Secretaries, and forty Members of
the Executive Committee. The total strength of the Union is of
9,169 members. The functioning of the Union is governed by the
Constitution. There is a dispute about the Constitution amended on
21-8-2014, though a duly certified copy from the Office of Registrar
of Trade Unions of this amended Constitution is produced on
record.
4. It is not in dispute that in the elections of the office bearers
and the members of the Executive Committee of the said Union
held on 19-8-2013, one Vidyasagar Choudhary was elected as the
President of the Union, and the petitioner No.2-Umashankar s/o
Gupteshwarprasad Singh was elected as the Working President of
the Union. President Vidyasagar Choudhary died on 19-2-2014,
wp6303.16.odt
and the petitioner No.2-Umashankar Singh, holding the post of
Working President, was appointed as President by way of interim
arrangement till the next elections of the Union are held. The tenure
of the Body elected on 19-8-2013, according to the old Constitution,
was of two years, which came to an end on 19-8-2015, whereas as
per the Constitution amended on 21-8-2014, it is of five years,
which shall come to an end on 19-8-2018.
5. According to the respondent Nos.1 and 2, there was
widespread discontentment amongst the members of the Union
about the functioning of some of the office bearers of the Union,
including the petitioner No.2-Umashankar Singh, and hence a
requisition signed by about 2,200 members of the Union was given
to the President and Secretary of the Union for calling a special
general meeting of the Union within a period of twenty days to hold
the fresh elections of the office bearers and the members of the
Executive Committee of the Union. Since no such meeting was
called by the petitioner No.2, the requisitionists held the special
wp6303.16.odt
general body meeting on 9-4-2015 with due notice to the members
of the Union and elected unanimously fourteen office bearers and
forty members of the Executive Committee of the Union for
ensuing term of two years.
6. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 - Kisan s/o Late Mangal
Ghubde and Dashrath s/o Janbaji Khandre respectively - moved an
application to the Deputy Registrar of Trade Unions, Nagpur for
grant of Consent Certificate, as required by sub-section (1) of
Section 28-1A of the Trade Unions Act. The Deputy Registrar,
Trade Unions, issued a Consent Certificate initially on 23-7-2015
and the same was subsequently corrected on 27-8-2015. The said
certificate is reproduced below :
"FORM L
[See Rule 23(2)]
TRADE UNIONS ACT, (1926)
Consent Certificate
No.ALC/TUBR/Con Letter/2015/Desk-1/5430
Office of the Additional Commissioner of Labour,
4th Floor, New Administration Building No.2,
wp6303.16.odt
Civil Lines, Nagpur-440001.
Date : 27/08/2015
On perusal of the application dated 29.05.2015
and consent certificate issued to 23.07.2015 and after
making correction, fresh Consent Certificate issue to
Shri Kisan Mangal Ghubde and Shri Dashrat Janbaji
Khandre, both member of Koyla Shramik Sabha having
Registration No.NBGP/977 both C/o Shri Deepak
Choudhary, 199-C, K.T. Nagar, Katol Road,
Nagpur-440013, and after making necessary inquiries in
respect of the alleged dispute/s regarding as to whethet or
not office bearers and other committee members is listed
in "ANNEXURE-A" are members and office bearers of the
union and as to whether they are entitled to hold and deal
with the property of the union including the cash and
books of accounts etc.
I A.H. Belekar the Deputy Registrar of Trade
Unions, Nagpur am satisfied that a dispute/s of the nature
referred to in sub section (1) of Section 28(1-A) of the
Trade /Union Act 1926 in its application to the State of
Maharashtra exists as to whether or not office bearers and
other committee members is listed in "Annexure-A" are
members and office bearers of the union and as to whether
they are entitled to hold and deal with the property of the
union including the cash and books of accounts etc. of the
Koyla Shramik Sabha (HMS) having Registration
No.NGP/977, situated at "Khrabhe Building" 5 New
Cotton Market, Ghat Road, Nagpur-400018 and consent
certificate is hereby given to Shri Kisan Mangal Ghubde &
Shri Dashrat Janbaji Khandre and they may refer the
dispute under the said Sub Section (1) of section 28(1-A)
of the Trade Union Act 1926 to the Industrial Court at
Nagpur.
wp6303.16.odt
Nagpur Sd/-Illegible
Dated : Deputy Registrar of Trade Unions,
Nagpur
To,
Shri Kisan Mangal Ghubde &
Shri Dashrat Janbaji Khandre,
Both C/o Shri Deepak Choudhary,
199-C, K.T. Nagar, Katol Road,
Nagpur 440013."
7. On the basis of the aforesaid certificate, the respondent
Nos.1 and 2 filed an application under Section 28-1A of the Trade
Unions Act before the Industrial Court, which is registered as TUA
Case No.1 of 2015, claiming the reliefs as under :
"i. hold and declare that the office bearers and
members of the working committee of the non applicant
no.17 union are as per the list Annexure "A" attached
with the Consent Certificate dated 27.8.2015 and they
alone are entitled to represent the union at all forums
before the non applicant No.15 management and all other
forums as representatives of employees;
wp6303.16.odt
ii. hold that the office bearers and members of the
working committee as listed in Annexure "A" to Consent
Certificate dated 27.8.2015 alone are entitled to hold cash
and property of the union and also to operate and
maintain the accounts of the union and to do all such
actions as are necessary to maintain the union and its
legitimate activities;
iii. Pass such other order, direction or relief this
Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case."
8. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 also filed an application under
Section 28-1A(2) of the Trade Unions Act for grant of interim
reliefs as under :
"i] direct the employer Western Coalfields Limited,
Nagpur, the non-applicant no.15 here in, not to make over
any amount deducted from the wages of the members of
the non applicant no.17 union to the non-applicants
1 to 14 pending final decision of the case;
ii] direct non applicants 1 to 14 to withdraw any
amount from any of the bank accounts in the name of the
non applicant no.17 union pending final decision of the
case;
wp6303.16.odt
iii] direct the non applicant no.15 management of
WCL to call the newly elected office bearers, listed as
Annexure "A" to the Consent Certificate dated 27.08.2015
and also in Para 6 of the main application herewith for
and in the meeting for finalizing process of membership
for the year 2016 and to give to them stamped receipt
books to enable them enroll members for the year 2016
accordingly, pending final decision of the case;
iv] pass such other order, direction or grant such
other relief this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the
facts and circumstances of the case."
9. The petitioners opposed the main application as well as the
application for grant of interim reliefs by filing their reply. The
stand of the petitioners is that there was no such meeting held on
9-4-2015, as has been claimed by the respondents in their
application, and the specific stand is taken that the persons at serial
Nos.3, 4, 6, 11, 13 and 14 in the list of office bearers at
Annexure-A to the Consent Certificate, and the persons at serial
Nos.1, 3, 4, 5, 10, 14, 21, 27, 30, 31 and 35 have given a declaration
that there was no such meeting actually held on 9-4-2015 nor any of
them have attended such meeting. According to the petitioners, the
wp6303.16.odt
minutes of meeting dated 9-4-2015, produced on record and signed
by 299 members only who said to have attended the meeting, are
fabricated.
10. The Industrial Court records the finding in the order
impugned that the functioning of the Union is governed by the old
Constitution, which prescribes two years' tenure of the elected body
of office bearers and the members of the Executive Committee.
The tenure of the body elected on 19-8-2013, therefore, comes to an
end on 19-8-2015. As per the requisition dated 16-3-2015, signed
by about 2,200 members, a special general meeting to elect the new
office bearers and the members of the Executive Committee was
called on 9-4-2015, in which the office bearers and the members of
the Executive Committee mentioned in Annexure-A to the Consent
Certificate were unanimously elected. It further holds that the
requisition letter dated 1-3-2015 under the signatures of 2,020
members of the Union is produced on record, requesting the
General Secretary and the President to convey the meeting within a
wp6303.16.odt
period of fifteen days and to take the decision about illegal action
started by the petitioner No.2 in regard to removal of office bearers
of the Union and nominating other persons, who were not
democratically elected and were outsiders. The Court holds that in
terms of Clause 15 of the Constitution of the Union, if the President
and the Secretary fail to convey such meeting, the requisitionists
can conduct the meeting and pass the resolution, which shall be
binding on the Union. It holds that such meeting was held by the
requisitionists at Shetkari Bhavan, Nagpur and the proceedings of
the meeting show that the petitioner No.2-Umashankar Singh did
not attend the meeting and remained absent. It further holds that the
respondent Nos.1 and 2 were elected in the said meeting amongst
fourteen office bearers and forty members of the Executive
Committee.
11. The Industrial Court refers to the declaration given by
certain office bearers and the members of the Executive Committee,
shown to be elected in the meeting dated 9-4-2015 to the effect that
wp6303.16.odt
no such meeting was held and they did not attend such meeting.
The Court holds that the petitioner No.2 managed these persons to
get such declaration filed. Referring to certain instances of illegal
acts alleged against the petitioner No.2 by the members, the Court
further holds that the petitioner No.2 was removed from the post of
President in the meeting held on 9-4-2015. The Court holds that the
balance of convenience lies in favour of the respondent Nos.1 and 2
and, therefore, if the interim order is not granted, the office bearers
democratically elected will be deprived of their legal rights and the
persons, who are not democratically elected, will be continued on
their respective posts.
12. Shri Subodh Dharmadhikari, the learned Senior Advocate,
assisted by Shri V.P. Marpakwar, Advocate for the petitioners, has
taken me through the pleadings, the copy of the minutes of meeting
held on 9-4-2015, and the findings recorded by the Industrial Court.
He submits that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have to stand on their
own legs to make out a prima facie case in support of the point of
wp6303.16.odt
reference. He further submits that the pleadings in the application
are too vague and short of pleadings on material facts. He has
pointed out that by the resolution dated 9-4-2015, two decisions are
taken - (i) removal of office bearers and members of Executive
Committee functioning from 19-8-2013; and (ii) holding of fresh
elections of office bearers and members of Executive Committee.
Relying upon the provisions of the Constitution amended on
21-8-2014, he submits that the power to remove the office bearers
of the Union lies with the Pratinidhi Mandal, as per Clause 5
therein, which has to pass the resolution by majority of 3/4 th
members after giving an opportunity to the persons concerned to
explain the acts of misconduct alleged against them.
13. Shri Dharmadhikari further submits that except producing
the photostat copy of the minutes of meeting dated 9-4-2015, no
other document is placed on record, including the notice of meeting,
the acknowledgments of the persons to whom the notice of meeting
was served, and even the copy of requisition in support of the reliefs
wp6303.16.odt
claimed in the application. He submits that even the date of
issuance of notice to call a requisition meeting, is conspicuously
absent in the pleadings. He further submits that even the names of
members to whom the notice of meeting dated 9-4-2015 was given,
are not mentioned, and no acknowledgments about service of notice
of meeting are produced on record. He submits that there is
absolutely no case made out, muchless a prima facie case, to grant
interim relief, which is in the nature of final relief. He has placed
reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Deoraj
v. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in (2004) 4 SCC 697,
wherein it is held in para 12 that such a relief can be granted only in
the rare and exceptional cases where the Court is satisfied that
withholding of it would prick the conscience of the Court and do
violence to the sense of justice.
14. Shri S.D. Thakur, the learned counsel for the respondent
Nos.1 and 2, supports the findings recorded by the Industrial Court
and submits that in order to maintain peace and harmony amongst
wp6303.16.odt
the members of the Union, the order impugned calls for no
interference. He submits that the grievances to which the reference
is made in the order impugned, are serious in nature, hampering the
normal working of the Union. He further submits that only five
members of the Union were removed, and rest of the persons, who
were elected on 19-8-2013, were continued in the election held on
9-4-2015. He accepts that the change was not brought about in a
formal manner, and the requirement of 1/3rd quorum was only in
respect of general meeting and special meeting. He has taken me
through the averments made in the complaint before the Industrial
Court and has urged that the petitioner No.2 is acting in an arbitrary
manner in removal of certain office bearers of the Union and
creating new posts and appointing certain persons, who are even
outsiders. He submits that there are several financial irregularities,
and in this background, the order impugned does not call for any
interference and the petition has to be dismissed.
15. The provisions of sub-sections (1), (2) and (5) of
wp6303.16.odt
Section 28-1A of the Trade Unions Act being relevant are
reproduced below :
"28-1A. Power of Industrial Court to decide certain
disputes.--(1) Where there is a dispute as respects whether
or not any person is an office-bearer or a member of a
registered Trade Union (including any dispute relating to
wrongful explusion of any such office-bearer or member),
or where there is any dispute relating to the property
(including the account books) of any registered Trade
Union, any member of such registered Trade Union for a
period of not less than six months may, within the consent
of the Registrar, and in such manner as may be
prescribed, refer the dispute to the Industrial Court
constituted under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act,
1946, for decision.
(2) The Industrial Court shall, after hearing the
parties to the dispute, decide the dispute; and may require
an office-bearer or members of the Registered Trade
Union to be appointed whether by election or otherwise
under the supervision of such person as the Industrial
Court may appoint in this behalf or removed, in
accordance with the rules of the Trade Union:
Provided that the Industrial Court may, pending
the decision of the dispute, make an interim order
specifying or appointing any person or appointing a
Committee of Administration for any purpose under the
Act including the purpose of taking possession or control
of the property in dispute and managing it for the
purposes of the Union pending the decision.
wp6303.16.odt
(5) Save as aforesaid, the Industrial Court may, in
deciding disputes under this section, exercise the same
powers and follow the same procedure as it exercises or
follows for the purpose of deciding industrial dispute
under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946."
Perusal of the aforesaid provisions shows that the power conferred
upon the Industrial Court is to decide the dispute whether or not any
person is an office bearer or a member of a registered Trade Union
(including any dispute relating to wrongful expulsion of any such
office bearer or member), or where there is any dispute relating to
the property (including the account books) of any registered Trade
Union, such dispute can be referred to the Industrial Court with the
consent of the Registrar for decision. The Industrial Court has to
decide the dispute, and it may require an office bearer or a member
of the registered Trade Union to be appointed whether by election
or otherwise under the supervision of such person as the Industrial
Court may appoint in this behalf or removed, in accordance with
the rules of the Trade Union.
wp6303.16.odt
16. Perusal of the Consent Certificate dated 27-8-2015,
reproduced earlier, shows that the dispute referred is as to whether
or not the office bearers and other Committee members listed in
Annexure-A are the members and the office bearers of the Union,
and as to whether they are entitled to vote and deal with the
property of the Union, including the cash, books of accounts, etc. of
the Union. It is not the dispute referred to the Industrial Court
about removal of the office bearers or the members of the Executive
Committee for the adjudication. Therefore, the respondent Nos.1
and 2 in this petition are required to establish that the meeting
alleged to have been held on 9-2-2015 was lawful, in which the
members and the office bearers, whose names are mentioned in
Annexure-A of the Consent Certificate, were validly elected.
17. Perusal of the reliefs claimed in the main complaint and
those claimed in the application for grant of interim reliefs before
the Industrial Court clearly shows that the grant of interim reliefs
wp6303.16.odt
would be the outcome of granting the main reliefs in the complaint.
If the grant of main reliefs itself is doubtful, at this stage, granting
of interim reliefs would obviously be contrary to the well settled
principles of law. Therefore, unless a specific case is made out
about illegality and validity of the proceedings of the meeting held
on 9-4-2015, supported by the relevant documents, the question of
granting interim reliefs, as prayed for, would not arise. In the
decision of the Apex Court in the case of Deoraj v. State of
Maharashtra and others, cited supra, it is held that only in rare and
exceptional cases where refusal to grant interim relief would prick
the conscience of the Court, the interim relief in the nature of final
relief can be granted. No such case was made out by the
respondent Nos.1 and 2. The Industrial Court has, therefore,
committed an error in ignoring these principles of law.
18. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are coming before the Court
with the burden or responsibility of establishing that a meeting of
the Union was in fact held on 9-4-2015 and that such meeting was
wp6303.16.odt
lawful so as to confer upon the respondent Nos.1 and 2 power to
hold and deal with the property of the Union, including the cash,
the books of accounts, etc. The averments in the application filed
by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 show the date of 16-3-2005, on
which a requisition was given by about 2,200 members of the
Union to the petitioner No.2 calling upon him to convene a special
general body meeting to elect the new office members and working
committee members. A copy of the requisition placed on record of
this Court for the first time, shows the date of 1-3-2015. The date
of tendering requisition is crucial, as the meeting is required to be
called within a period of twenty days, failing which, the
requisitionists can call a meeting. There is total inconsistency in
the pleading and proof and, therefore, no finding can be recorded
about competency of the requisitionists to hold a meeting on
9-4-2015.
19. There is no averment in the application about the date of
service of either notice dated 16-3-2015 or dated 1-3-2015, upon
wp6303.16.odt
the petitioner No.2. There is no averment in the complaint by the
respondent Nos.1 and 2 before the Industrial Court that the notices
of the special general meeting were issued or served upon all the
members of the Union. The mode and manner in which the service
was effected, is also not pleaded. The minutes of meeting
dated 9-4-2015, produced on record, shows the signatures of only
299 members out of more than 9,000 members of the Union. Even
there is absence of the averment regarding the quorum in the
meeting. In view of such conspicuous absence of material facts, it
is not possible for the Court to record the finding even on a
prima facie case holding that the petitioner No.2 failed to call a
special general meeting within a period of twenty days from the
date of receipt of such notice, and that the meeting dated 9-4-2015
was convened with valid authority. At the most it was a case for
proceeding with the trial and not for grant of interim reliefs.
20. The Industrial Court accepts that the persons at serial
Nos.3, 4, 6, 11, 13 and 14 in the list of office bearers at Annexure-A
wp6303.16.odt
to the Consent Certificate, and the persons at serial Nos.1, 3, 4, 5,
10, 14, 21, 27, 30, 31 and 35 therein have given a declaration that
there was no such meeting actually held on 9-4-2015, nor any of
them have attended such meeting. The Industrial Court could not
have brushed aside such declaration in the absence of any proof,
even of a prima facie nature to hold that the petitioner No.2
managed to get such declaration filed. It was a matter of evidence
and could be considered only upon the oral and documentary
evidence is brought on record in support of it. The Industrial Court
has, therefore, committed an error in holding that the balance of
convenience lies in favour of the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
21. Perusal of the copy of the minutes of meeting held on 9-4-
2015, said to have signed by 299 members of the Union, the names
of the persons, said to have been elected on the posts of office
bearers or the members of the Executive Committee, were neither
proposed nor seconded by any of the persons. Shri Thakur, the
learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2, fairly
wp6303.16.odt
concedes to the position that the formal procedure of conducting of
elections was not followed in the meeting dated 9-4-2015. He also
does not dispute that the presence of 299 members of the Union
would not be enough to constitute the quorum. He does not dispute
that even under the provisions of the old Constitution, the quorum
prescribed was of 1/3rd members of the Union. According to him,
such rule was not applicable to a meeting called by the
requisitionists. Prima facie, such a view cannot be accepted. The
Industrial Court has overlooked these vital aspects of the matter
while holding that a prima facie case is made out.
22. Perusal of the requisition, said to have been tendered by
2,020 members of the Union, shows that it was for calling of the
meeting to hold fresh elections only. It was not a demand in the
requisition to remove the existing body, of which the tenure was to
expire, even according to the respondent Nos.1 and 2, on
19-8-2015. In such a situation, the consideration by the Industrial
Court of the several allegations made about irregularities, said to
wp6303.16.odt
have been committed by the petitioner No.2, to hold that a prima
facie case is made out, is an irrelevant consideration. The
allegations against the petitioner No.2 in the complaint, are as
vague as they could be, and it is doubtful as to whether the evidence
can be permitted to be led on such allegations. There is nothing
placed on record even to prima facie hold that the petitioner No.2
has been committing the acts of irregularities. The Industrial Court
has, therefore, committed an error in considering these aspects of
the matter.
23. The findings recorded by the Industrial Court on a
prima facie assessment of the case are without any basis and in
ignorance of the well-settled principles of law. To grant an interim
relief amounts to dislodging the members of the Union, who were
validly holding the office, without there being any resolution to that
effect in a validly conducted meeting. The Industrial Court ought
to have seen that the balance of convenience was in favour of the
petitioners herein, and grant of interim relief in ignorance of the
wp6303.16.odt
principles of law, would cause an irreparable loss to the petitioners,
rather than the respondent Nos.1 and 2. The order impugned
cannot, therefore, be sustained.
24. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The order
dated 4-10-2016 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court
No.4, Nagpur, in Application (T.U.) No.01 of 2015, is hereby
quashed and set aside. The application for grant of interim reliefs is
dismissed. None of the observations made on merits of the matter
in this judgment shall come in the way of parties, while finally
adjudicating the claims.
25. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to
costs.
JUDGE.
Lanjewar
