Airports Authority Of India ... vs Airports Authority Of India And ...
2004 Latest Caselaw 1314 Del

JUDGMENT

R.S. Sodhi, J.

1. FAO 325 of 2004 seeks to challenge the order dated 8.11.2004 of the Additional District Judge in Suit No. 235/2004 whereby the learned Additional District Judge has disposed of an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the appellants herein and also two separate applications under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure for vacation of stay filed by the 2nd and 3rd respondents.

2. Brief facts of the case, as noted by the learned Additional District Judge, are as follows :

"The plaintiff is an association of workers of Airport Authority of India. Airport Authority of India is Defendant No. 1 in the present suit. There are total five unions of the workers of Airport Authority of India. One of these five unions is the plaintiff herein and the other four unions are Defendants No.3 to 6 in the case. Out of the five unions of workers existing in the Airport Authority of India, only one of them is a recognised union and the other four unions work in tendom either independently or in collaboration with the recognised union. The election of the workers' union is held after every five years. Defendant No. 3 was a recognised union of workers even in 1997. At that time the plaintiff union which was not a recognized union had been working in collaboration arrangement with Defendant No. 3 union and the said arrangement between them continued till on or around March, 2000. Some disputes and differences arose between them around March, 2000 and because of those differences Shri Khim Singh, the then General Secretary was removed as General Secretary of Defendant No. 3 union and the plaintiff union was asked to vacate the official accommodation allotted by defendant No. 1 for use by the recognised union. In the meanwhile, defendant No. 4 union filed a writ petition in the Hon'ble Delhi High Court being C.W. No. 384/01 seeking directions to defendant No. 1 for holding of elections and in that writ petition the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide its order dated 16.01.2002 directed the defendant No. 1 for holding the elections of workers' union and pursuant thereto an Election Committee was constituted and a notification for holding of elections was issued on 27.06.2002. The elections were held on 23.10.2002 and results of the elections were declared on 20.10.2002. Defendant No. 3 was declared a winning union by the Management of Defendant No. 1 on 20.10.2002 and consequent thereto Defendant No. 3 was admitted as a recognised union by defendant No. 1. Till that time no objections to the procedure adopted for holding of election or objection of any other kind regarding electoral rolls or the polling etc. were raised by any of the unions which participated in the elections of 2002. The plaintiff being a loosing union filed a suit for declaration, mandatory and perpetual injunction in the Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 15.11.2002 and it is this suit which consequent upon raising of pecuniary jurisdiction of District Courts from Rs. 5 Lacs to Rs. 20 Lacs was transferred by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court to the District Courts vide its order dated 14.07.2004. This suit on being transferred to the District Court was marked to this Court for further trial and was registered here as Suit No. 235 of 2004.

The plaintiff had filed an application for ad-interim ex-parte injunction being I.A. No. 10581/2002 wherein following interim relief was sought:-

"Pending decision in the above suit the defendants and more particularly the defendants No. 1 and 3 may kindly be restrained from giving effect to the result of elections declared on 30.10.2002 and the letter of recognition dated 30.10.2002 issued to the defendant No. 3 union on 08.11.2002 pursuant to the results of election dated 30.10.2002. The defendant No. 1 may also be directed not to dispossess the plaintiff-union from the facilities of Office Accommodation, etc."

While the case was pending in the High Court, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide its order dated 18.11.2002 granted ad-interim ex parte injunction in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants in following terms:-

"In view of the averments made in this application and in the plaint whih are duly supported by the documents on record, I feel that if ex-parte and interim orders are not granted, the relief claimed itself may become infructuous. Accordingly, the defendants are restrained till further orders from dispossessing the plaintiffs and union from the facilities of the office accommodation, office equipments and related facilities as are being availed by plaintiff as on date. Liberty to defendants to mention for variation of injunction upon due service of advance copy of application for the said purposes upon the learned Counsel for plaintiff. Compliance of Order 39 Rule 3 CPC within three days."

Immediately on being served with the above injunction order Along with the notice of the suit, two separate applications under order 39 Rule 4 CPC were filed by Defendants No. 1 to 3. One application was filed on 06.01.2003 by defendants No. 1 and 3 and the second application was filed by defendant No. 3 on 07.01.2003. The defendants No. 1 and 3 have prayed for vacating the injunction order granted against them and in favor of the plaintiff on 18.11.2002."

3. The learned Judge by his order dated 8.11.2004 vacated the ad interim stay granted on 18.11.2002 and dismissed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure while allowing the applications under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

4. It was contended by Mr. Bhandare, learned Senior Advocate for the appellants, that what the appellants are seeking is mere status quo of possession with respect to the premises in their possession. He submitted that the status quo order is in the interest of justice inasmuch as the election of the 3rd respondent has been challenged by way of Suit No. 235/2004 on the ground of gross irregularities. He further pointed out that the recognised Union has already been allotted a separate office space and referred to letter dated 20.2.2002 wherein decision was taken by the General Manager (Personnel) to allot fresh accommodation to the recognised Union at five international airports and in the operational office till the referendum is held sometime in 2002. The allotment of office accommodation to the Union was to be without disturbing the existing office accommodation in possession of the Workers' Union at the International Airports and operational offices.

5. Counsel for the respondents submitted that the allotment of offices to recognised Union is governed by guidelines which have been formulated to provide facilities. He submits that only a recognised Union is to be provided with the facilities of accommodation, telephone, car, STD etc. which works out to approximately rupees six lacs every month to be borne by the International Airport Authority. Counsel further submitted that the appellants will not be in a position to take aid of letter dated 20.02.2002 since it was limited to the referendum being held. In the present case the 3rd respondent has been recognised as the Union on 30.10.2002 as a result of process of elections.

6. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the order under challenge as also the documents referred to by counsel in support of their cases. It appears to me that the election held in the year 2002 were to the recognised Union in which all employees participated. Any fraction or pressure groups within themselves forming separate Unions lose their relevance once elections have been held and results declared for the purpose of accommodation and facilities to be provided by the 1st respondent. In the present case, the 3rd respondent emerged as the elected representative of the workers of the International Airport Authority and was recognised as such on 30.10.2002. Splinter unions or pressure groups cannot claim any right to accommodation/facilities that are reserved for the recognised Union. Letter dated 20.2.2002 does not confer a vested right on the appellant to facilities/accommodation which is governed by guidelines.

7. As regards balance of convenience, the nature of irregularities alleged to have taken place do not, prima facie, impress me and the reasoning of the trial court while dealing with this aspect of the matter cannot be faulted with.

8. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the order under challenge deserves not to be interfered with. Accordingly, FAO 325/2004 and C.M. Appl. 14360/2004 are dismissed. No order as to costs. Any observation made in this order shall not be taken to be an expression of opinion on merits of the suit.