Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. vs Registrar, Trade Unions Govt. Of ...
2014 Latest Caselaw 4494 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                    CM(M) No. 807/2011& CM Nos. 22453/11 & 1576/13

%                                              16th September, 2014

MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD.              ......Petitioner
                Through: Mr. Saket Sikri and Mr. Vaibhav
                         Kalra, Advocates.


                           VERSUS

REGISTRAR, TRADE UNIONS GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI &ORS.
                                             ...... Respondents
                  Through: Mr. Siddharth Aneja, Adv. for Mr.
                           Sumit Chander, Adv. for R-2.

                                         Mr. D.V.Khatri, Adv. for R-3 and 4.

                                         Mr. K.K.Gautam, Adv. for R-5.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.             This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

impugns the interim order dated 31.5.2011 passed in the suit. Petition is

filed by defendant no.5 in the suit.        Defendant no.5/petitioner is the

employer. Suit was filed by one of the members of the union which is the

defendant no.4 in the suit. The subject suit was a suit for declaration,

CMM 807/2011                                                               Page 1 of 3
 injunction and rendition of accounts. The real issue is with respect to the

claim of the plaintiff/respondent no.5 with respect to a particular post which

was held in a Union of the petitioner company.

2.             By the impugned order petitioner/defendant no.5 has been

asked to file independent proceedings for challenging of the elections

conducted on 11.5.2011, and to which order I cannot find any error

inasmuch as surely in a suit which is filed by respondent no.5, if a fresh

cause of action arises to the petitioner/defendant no.5 to challenge the

elections which are conducted during the pendency of the suit, then,

obviously such a claim would have to be filed either as a counter-claim or as

a fresh suit. Issues which do not arise in the main suit cannot have any

concern with the main suit and therefore qua such issues which have no

connection with the main suit, there cannot even be a counter-claim and

therefore there is no illegality in the impugned order which directs the

petitioner/defendant no.5 to file appropriate independent proceedings ie a

fresh suit.


3.             Therefore, there is no merit in the petition because the

impugned order rightly allows the petitioner/defendant no.5 to file a fresh

suit with respect to the fresh cause of action to challenge the elections

CMM 807/2011                                                               Page 2 of 3
 conducted on 11.5.2011, and which was not a matter in issue in the suit,

though, there may be interim orders pursuant to which the elections may

have been held.

4.             Learned counsel for the petitioner also states that today the

scenario has changed because now there is a totally new Union of the

petitioner/defendant no.5 in place and really therefore once there is a totally

new and separate Union, consequently the petitioner would in all probability

may or may not have any surviving issue pertaining to the elections

conducted on 11.5.2011 qua the different union and which is the defendant

no.4 in the suit..


5.             In view of the above, this petition is dismissed subject of course

to the above entitlement of the petitioner/defendant no.5 to file a fresh suit or

independent proceedings in accordance with law to challenge the elections

conducted on 11.5.2011, provided of course if the petitioner/defendant no.5

so wants, and which it may or may not in view of what is recorded in para 4

above.



SEPTEMBER 16, 2014                              VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

ib