Utpal Biswas And Ors. vs Food Corporation Of India Workers ...
2005 Latest Caselaw 772 Del

JUDGMENT

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

1. On 4.4.2005 while issuing summons in the suit, in IA 2510/2005 I had passed the following interim order:

"Issue notice to the respondents, for 3.5.2005. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the Local Commissioners appointed by this Court in CS(OS)681/03 and 2394/00 have yet to hold elections. Counsel urges that two retired judges of this Court were, in succession, appointed as Local Commissioners to hold elections to ensure transparency in the election process. Counsel urges that defendants 2 to 14 cannot usurp the management of defendant no.1 by proclaiming that they have been elected to various posts on the basis of a sham election.

Till the present order is vacated or modified, defendants 2 to 14 are restrained from holding themselves out or acting as office bearers of defendant No.1. Said defendants shall not collect any amount by way of contributions from members or otherwise pertaining to defendant No.1. Compliance be made with Order 39 Rule 3 within 3 days.

dusty."

2. What influenced this court in granting the ex-parte ad interim relief were the averments made in para 7 of the plaint. Averments in para 7 of the plaint read as under:-

"That Defendant No.1 has now recently in August 2004 issued a booklet of the FCI Workers Union. The persons representing and holding themselves out to be the office bearers are different from the office bearers elected vide the last AGM held on 11.04.1998. It is submitted that as per the list of members elected as the office bearers on 11.4.1998, Defendant no.2 was elected as the Vice President and as per the said booklet he is illegally holding himself out to be the President of the said Union which in fact he is not. Defendant No.3 who was elected as the Asst. Secretary at the AGM held on 11.4.1998 is holding himself out as the Joint Secretary of the Union. It is pertinent to mention here that there was only one post of Joint Secretary at the time the last election were held and Shri G.S. Jena was elected to the said post and he continues to hold the said post till date. Therefore Defendant no.3 holding himself out to be the Joint Secretary is illegal and without any authority.

Defendant No.4 was elected as the Asst. Secretary of the said union at the last AGM but is now holding himself out to be the Vice President of the said Union. Defendant No.5 who is now holding himself out as the Vice President was never elected as an Office bearer at the last AGM held on 11.04.1998. Defendants no.6 to 8 who are holding themselves out to be the Asst. Secretary's were never elected as the Office bearers of the said Union at the last AGM. Defendants no.9 to 12 who are holding themselves out as the organizing Secretaries were never elected as Office bearers of the said Union. Defendant no.13 was never elected as the Office Secretary. Defendant no.14 is claiming himself to be the Sr.Vice President provided for in the Constitution of the Defendant Union and he was never elected as such at the last AGM."

3. Since ex-parte ad interim injunction granted by this court had a wide sweep, span of the sweep being influenced by assertions of the plaintiff in para 7 of the plaint, I heard arguments on IA No.3448/2005 with the limited objective of considering whether order dated 4.4.2005 needs variation as defendants No.2 to 14 stood completely injuncted from acting as the office bearers of defendant No.1.

4. In the written statement by defendant No.1, response to para 7 of the plaint is as under:-

"The contents of para 7 are wrong, misconceived and denied. It is submitted that the Defendants continue to hold their actual original posts as on 11.4.1998, though, they have been entrusted with the additional duties, responsibilities and powers in addition. It is stated that the additional duties were given to the office bearers by a Resolution dated 16.1.2000 and 9/11.4.2002 as the Defendant No.1 Union was facing a lot of hardships in the day to day functioning due to death, retirement and expulsion of many office bearers and members during the period 1999 till date. It is further stated that the Constitution of the Defendant No.1 Union does not prevent such ad hoc adjustment and the Executive Committee duly empowered to such duties, responsibilities, powers to the office bearers, as it may deem fit under Clause 14 of the Constitution of Defendant No.1 Union. The Defendant No.1 refers to and relies upon the Preliminary Objections and submissions set out above as well as, the Schedules to this Written Statement, which are not being repeated herein for the sake of brevity and be read as part of a reply to the para."

5. During course of arguments, learned counsel for defendant No.1 stated that notwithstanding action taken by the defendants to fill up the vacancy because by death, expulsion or resignation of the office bearers, defendant No.1 would revert to the position of the elected office bearers as per elections held on 11.4.1998.

6. I propose not to deal with any of the submissions urged and leave the same to be decided when plaintiffs application being IA No.2510/2005 is decided however I modify the ex-parte ad interim order dated 4.4.2005 for the reason said order was influenced by the fact that after 1998 no elections to elect the office bearers of defendant No.1 were held and it was averred in the plaint that defendants No.2 to 14 were holding themselves out as office bearers of defendant No.1 to different posts and that they were not elected to said posts in the elections held in the year 1998, but the fact is that some of the defendants were elected in 1998 but to a different post.

7. In view of response to para 7 of the plaint and in view of the statement made by counsel for defendant No.1 as recorded in the order dated 9.5.2005, IA No.3448/2005 is disposed of modifying the order dated 4.4.2005 in that such of the persons who were elected in the elections held on 11.4.1998 shall continue to act as office bearer to which he/she was elected and to no other posts. The elected office bearers would be permitted to collect contribution from members and discharge their functions as office bearers.

8. IA No.3448/2005 stands disposed of. Needless to state that nothing observed in the present order shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the controversy, much less for the purposes of decision of IA No.2510/2005. It is clarified that the present order has been passed by taking into note the limited facts as noted above.

9. No costs.