Karnataka High Court

Sri Prashanth Kumar G vs The Union Of India on 7 August, 2024

Author: M.G.S. Kamal

Bench: M.G.S. Kamal

                                             -1-
                                                            NC: 2024:KHC:31532
                                                       WP No. 22098 of 2022




                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                      DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

                                          BEFORE
                       THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
                     WRIT PETITION NO. 22098 OF 2022 (GM-RES)
                BETWEEN:
                1. SRI PRASHANTH KUMAR G.,
                   S/O GANGARAJAPPA D.,
                   AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
                   R/AT NO.2882, 14TH E MAIN
                   8TH E CROSS, RPC LAYOUT
                   VIJAYANAGARA, BENGALURU-560 040.

                2.   SRI H N SHIVAKUMAR
                     S/O NAGARAJU
                     AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
                     NO.105, HARINI TOWERS, 3RD MAIN
                     OPP:RING ROAD, (NEAR FTI), 2ND STAGE
                     INDUSTRIAL SUBURB, YESHWANTHPUR
                     BENGALURU-560 022.
                                                                 ...PETITIONERS

                (BY SRI. VIJAY SHETTY B.,ADVOCATE)

Digitally       AND:
signed by       1. THE UNION OF INDIA
SUMA B N           REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
Location:          MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
High Court of
Karnataka          RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI-110 011.

                2.   THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER
                     THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS
                     VISL BUILDING, J C ROAD
                     BENGALURU-560 006.

                3.   THE ELECTION COMMISSIONER
                     THE KARNATAKA STATE ESIC EMPLOYEES
                     UNION, NO.10 BINNY FIELDS, BINNYPET
                     BENGALURU-560 023.
                             -2-
                                        NC: 2024:KHC:31532
                                     WP No. 22098 of 2022




4.   THE EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE
     CORPORATION EMPLOYEES FEDERATION
     PANCHADEEP BHAVAN
     ESIC HEAD QUARTERS, NEW DELHI-110 001
     REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY GENERAL.

5.   THE KARNATAKA STATE ESIC
     EMPLOYEES UNION
     ESI CORPORATION
     REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.46
     (OUT HOUSE), 5TH CROSS MALLESHWARAM
     BENGALURU-560 003
     REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY
     UNDER REGISTERED TRADE UNION ACT, 1996.

6.   SRI KRISHNAMURTHY N
     (FATHER S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER)
     AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
     THE KARNATAKA STATE ESIC EMPLOYEES
     UNION, OFFICE AT NO.10 BINNY FIELDS
     BINNY PET, BENGALURU-560 023.

7.   SRI SURESHBABU S.R.,
     (FATHER S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER)
     AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
     THE KARNATAKA STATE ESIC EMPLOYEES
     UNION, OFFICE AT NO.10 BINNY FIELDS
     BINNY PET, BENGALURU-560 023.

8.   SRI C R MANJUNATH
     (FATHER S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER)
     AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
     THE KARNATAKA STATE ESIC EMPLOYEES
     UNION, OFFICE AT NO.10, BINNY FIELDS
     BINNY PET, BENGALURU-560 023.

9.   SRI MANJUNATHA K R
     (FATHER S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER)
     AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
     THE KARNATAKA STATE ESIC EMPLOYEES UNION
     OFFICE AT NO.10 BINNY FIELDS
     BINNY PET, BENGALURU-560 023.

10. SRI BASAVALINGASWAMY P.,
    (FATHER S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER)
    AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
                            -3-
                                          NC: 2024:KHC:31532
                                    WP No. 22098 of 2022




    THE KARNATAKA STATE ESIC EMPLOYEES
    UNION, OFFICE AT NO.10 BINNY FIELDS
    BINNY PET, BENGALURU-560 023.

11. SRI PRASHANTH P.,
    (FATHER S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER)
    AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
    THE KARNATAKA STATE ESIC EMPLOYEES
    UNION, OFFICE AT NO.10 BINNY FIELDS
    BINNY PET, BENGALURU-560 023.

12. SRI PREETHI DAYALAN
    (FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER)
    AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
    THE KARNATAKA STATE ESIC EMPLOYEES
    UNION, OFFICE AT NO.10 BINNY FIELDS
    BINNY PET, BENGALURU-560 023.

13. SRI GOVINDASWAMY K N
    (FATHER S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER)
    AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
    THE KARNATAKA STATE ESIC EMPLOYEES UNION
    OFFICE AT NO.10 BINNY FIELDS
    BINNY PET, BENGALURU-560 023.

14. SRI VIVEK KUMAR V.,
    (FATHER S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER)
    AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
    THE KARNATAKA STATE ESIC EMPLOYEES
    UNION, OFFICE AT NO.10 BINNY FIELDS
    BINNY PET, BENGALURU-560 023.

15. SRI D VINOTH FRANKLIN
    (FATHER S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER)
    AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
    REGIONAL OFFICE KARNATAKA, ESIC
    PANCHAPADEEP BHAVAN
    NO.10 BINNY FIELDS
    TANK BUND ROAD BINNYPET
    BENGALURU-560023.

16. SRI GANGADHAR B.,
    (FATHER S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER)
    AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
    REGIONAL OFFICE KARNATAKA, ESIC
    PANCHAPADEEP BHAVAN
                            -4-
                                       NC: 2024:KHC:31532
                                    WP No. 22098 of 2022




    NO.10 BINNY FIELDS
    TANK BUND ROAD BINNYPET
    BENGALURU-560023.

17. SRI MANJUNATHA D.,
    (FATHER S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER)
    AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
    REGIONAL OFFICE KARNATAKA, ESIC
    PANCHAPADEEP BHAVAN
    NO.10 BINNY FIELDS
    TANK BUND ROAD, BINNYPET
    BENGALURU-560 023.

18. SRI YATEESHA K
    (FATHER S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER)
    AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
    REGIONAL OFFICE KARNATAKA, ESIC
    PANCHAPADEEP BHAVAN
    NO.10 BINNY FIELDS
    TANK BUND ROAD, BINNYPET
    BENGALURU-560 023.

19. SRI BASAVARAJ ISHWAR HUNASIMARAD
    (FATHER S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER)
    AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
    REGIONAL OFFICE KARNATAKA, ESIC
    PANCHAPADEEP BHAVAN
    NO.10 BINNY FIELDS
    TANK BUND ROAD BINNYPET
    BENGALURU-560 023.

20. SRI CHIDANANDA D.,
    (FATHER S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER)
    AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
    REGIONAL OFFICE KARNATAKA, ESIC
    PANCHAPADEEP BHAVAN
    NO.10 BINNY FIELDS
    TANK BUND ROAD BINNYPET
    BENGALURU-560023.

21. SRI GANESH BABU
    (FATHER S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER)
    AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
    REGIONAL OFFICE KARNATAKA, ESIC
    PANCHAPADEEP BHAVAN
    NO.10 BINNY FIELDS
                            -5-
                                       NC: 2024:KHC:31532
                                    WP No. 22098 of 2022




    TANK BUND ROAD BINNYPET
    BENGALURU-560023.

22. SRI GOVINDASWAMY K.N.,
    (FATHER S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER)
    AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
    REGIONAL OFFICE KARNATAKA, ESIC
    PANCHAPADEEP BHAVAN
    NO.10 BINNY FIELDS
    TANK BUND ROAD BINNYPET
    BENGALURU-560023.

23. SRI LAKSHMEGOWDA NINGAIAH
    (FATHER S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER)
    AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
    REGIONAL OFFICE KARNATAKA, ESIC
    PANCHAPADEEP BHAVAN
    NO.10 BINNY FIELDS
    TANK BUND ROAD BINNYPET
    BENGALURU-560 023.

24. SRI MADHAN KUMAR R
    (FATHER S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER)
    AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
    REGIONAL OFFICE KARNATAKA, ESIC
    PANCHAPADEEP BHAVAN
    NO.10 BINNY FIELDS
    TANK BUND ROAD BINNYPET
    BENGALURU-560023.

25. SRI MANOJ B. KESARI
    (FATHER S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER)
    AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
    REGIONAL OFFICE KARNATAKA, ESIC PANCHAPADEEP
    BHAVAN
    NO.10 BINNY FIELDS
    TANK BUND ROAD BINNYPET
    BENGALURU-560 023.

26. SRI MUKUNDA B.C.,
    (FATHER S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER)
    AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
    REGIONAL OFFICE KARNATAKA, ESIC
    PANCHAPADEEP BHAVAN
    NO.10 BINNY FIELDS
    TANK BUND ROAD BINNYPET
                            -6-
                                       NC: 2024:KHC:31532
                                    WP No. 22098 of 2022




    BENGALURU-560 023.


27. SRI PALTHYA VENKATESULU NAIK
    (FATHER S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER)
    AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
    REGIONAL OFFICE KARNATAKA, ESIC
    PANCHAPADEEP BHAVAN
    NO.10 BINNY FIELDS
    TANK BUND ROAD BINNYPET
    BENGALURU-560023.

28. SRI PRABHAKARA REDDY T R
    (FATHER S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER)
    AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
    REGIONAL OFFICE KARNATAKA, ESIC PANCHAPADEEP
    BHAVAN
    NO.10 BINNY FIELDS
    TANK BUND ROAD BINNYPET
    BENGALURU-560 023.

29. SRI PRASHANTH P.,
    (FATHER S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER)
    AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
    REGIONAL OFFICE KARNATAKA, ESIC
    PANCHAPADEEP BHAVAN
    NO.10 BINNY FIELDS
    TANK BUND ROAD BINNYPET
    BENGALURU-560 023.

30. SRI RAMESHA A.R.,
    (FATHER S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER)
    AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
    REGIONAL OFFICE KARNATAKA, ESIC
    PANCHAPADEEP BHAVAN
    NO.10 BINNY FIELDS
    TANK BUND ROAD BINNYPET
    BENGALURU-560 023.

31. SRI SOMESHWARA S
    (FATHER S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER)
    AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
    REGIONAL OFFICE KARNATAKA, ESIC
    PANCHAPADEEP BHAVAN
    NO.10, BINNY FIELDS
    TANK BUND ROAD BINNYPET
                            -7-
                                       NC: 2024:KHC:31532
                                    WP No. 22098 of 2022




    BENGALURU-560 023.


32. SRI VENAKTESHA G.M.,
    (FATHER S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER)
    AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
    REGIONAL OFFICE KARNATAKA, ESIC
    PANCHAPADEEP BHAVAN
    NO.10, BINNY FIELDS
    TANK BUND ROAD BINNYPET
    BENGALURU-560 023.

33. SRI DORAIRAJ R.,
    (FATHER S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER)
    AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
    SRO PEENYA NO.105 HARINI TOWERS
    3RD MAIN OFF: RING ROAD (NEAR FIT)
    2ND STAGE, INDUSTRIAL SUBRUB
    YESHWANTHPUR, BENGALURU-560 022.

34. SRI KISHORE BABU P.,
    (FATHER S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER)
    AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
    SRO, PEENYA NO.105 HARINI TOWERS
    3RD MAIN OFF RING ROAD (NEAR FIT)
    2ND STAGE, INDUSTRIAL SUBRUB
    YESHWANTHPUR, BENGALURU-560 022.

35. SRI TAVAN S.P.,
    (FATHER S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER)
    AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
    SRO, BOMMASANDRA ESIC NO.23
    9TH B AND C MAIN,
    VENKATESHWARA COMPLEX
    BTM RING ROAD (OPP:IOC PETROL BUNK)
    BENGALURU-560 029.

36. SRI MAHESH V.,
    (FATHER S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER)
    AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
    ESIC-MODEL HOSPITAL
    RAJAJINAGAR, NO.620/A/1,
    12TH MAIN, 2ND BLOCK
    RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 010.
                            -8-
                                           NC: 2024:KHC:31532
                                    WP No. 22098 of 2022




37. SRI NIMMALA JAGADISH
    (FATHER S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER)
    AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
    ESIC-MODEL HOSPITAL
    RAJAJINAGAR
    NO.620/A/1, 12TH MAIN, 2ND BLOCK
    RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 010.

38. SRI HARSIHA K.,
    (FATHER S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER)
    AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
    ESIC-MODEL HOSPITAL
    RAJAJINAGAR, NO.620/A/1,
    12TH MAIN, 2ND BLOCK
    RAJAJINAGAR
    BENGALURU-560 010.

39. SRI YOGISH C NAIK
     (FATHER S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER)
     AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
     ESIC-MODEL HOSPITAL
     RAJAJINAGAR
     NO.620/A/1, 12TH MAIN, 2ND BLOCK
     RAJAJINAGAR
     BENGALURU-560010.
                                            ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ANUPARNA BORDOLOI., ADVOCATE FOR R1;'
SRI. H. SHANTHI BHUSHAN DSGI, FOR R3;
SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE HCGP FOR R2;
SRI. M.N. KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R9 AND R39)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
CIRCULAR VIDE NO.KAR.ESIC.EC.2022.23 DATED 17.10.2022
PERTAINING TO PART-C ISSUED BY THE R3 IN HOLDING THAT,R6
TO 39 ARE THE VALID CONTESTANTS FOR THEIR RESPECTIVE
POSTS IN THE ELECTION SCHEDULED TO BE HELD FOR THE R5
UNION ON 10.11.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

      THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:   HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
                                 -9-
                                              NC: 2024:KHC:31532
                                          WP No. 22098 of 2022




                           ORAL ORDER

Petitioners are before this Court seeking following

relief:

Quashing the circular vide No.Kar.ESIC.EC.2022-23 dated 17.10.2022 pertaining to Part-C, issued by the respondent No.3 in holding that, respondents 6 to 39 are the valid contestants for their respective posts in the election scheduled to be held for the respondent No.5-

Union on 10.11.2022 vide Annexure-A.

2. Petition pertains to elections that were proposed

to be held in respect of respondent No.5 -Karnataka State

ESIC Employees Union which is registered under the Trade

Union Act, 1996. Admittedly calendar of events as per

Annexure-E dated 19.09.2022 have been issued calling

upon for the nominations to be filed between 22.09.2022

to 06.10.2022 and fixing the consequent process of

elections including the date of polling and the counting of

votes to be held on 10.11.2022 and 24.11.2022.

Petitioners claiming to be the aspirants desirous of

contesting the said election approached this Court by filing

the above writ petition on 04.11.2022 i.e., after issuance

- 10 -

NC: 2024:KHC:31532

of calendar of events and after submission of the

nominations. The grounds urged seeking intervention of

this Court is purported violation of one of the provisions of

calendar of events, namely process of receipt of

nomination through hand being contrary to the provisions

providing for process of receiving nominations through

post.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners thus reiterating

the grounds urged in the memorandum of petition submits

that respondent No.3-Election Commissioner ought to

have ensured fair and free election including ensuring

compliance with the calendar of events. Thus he submits

violation of the same has given rise to this petition

requiring interference at the hands of this Court. Learned

counsel for the petitioners relies upon the Judgment in the

case of Union Territory of Ladakh and others Vs

Jammu and Kashmir National Conference and anr in

Civil Appeal No.5707/2023. Referring to paragraph 37

of the said Judgment, counsel submits that the present

- 11 -

NC: 2024:KHC:31532

case is an extraordinary case requiring intervention

despite issuance of calendar of events.

4. Per contra, Sri.M.N.Kumar, learned counsel

appearing for respondents 9 and 39 raises the issue with

regard to the very maintainability of the writ petition and

also alternatively contends that once when the calendar of

events are issued no Court shall interfere in the process of

election. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the petition.

5. Heard and perused the records.

6. Law with regard to interference by Courts in the

process of election once calendar of events is issued is no

more res integra. Courts normally restrain from

interfering in the process of election. Options are always

left open to the aggrieved parties to seek adjudication of

their rights after conclusion of the elections before

competent forum, provided for. [N.P.Ponnuswami Vs The

Returning Officer, Namakkal reported in AIR 1952 SC 64]

- 12 -

NC: 2024:KHC:31532

7. Learned counsel for petitioners relied upon the

Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union Territory

of Ladakh and others supra wherein at paragraph 37, the

Apex Court has held as under:

We would indicate that the restraint, self-imposed, by the Courts as a general principle, laid out in some detail in some of the decisions supra, in election matters to the extent that once a notification is issued and the election process starts, the Constitutional Courts, under normal circumstances are loath to interfere is not a contentious issue. But where issues crop up, indicating unjust executive action or an attempt to disturb a level-playing field between candidates and/or political parties with no justifiable or intelligible basis, the Constitutional Courts are, nay they are duty-bound, to step in. The reason that the Courts have usually maintained a hands-off approach is with the sole salutary objective of ensuring that the elections, which are a manifestation of the will of the people, are taken to their logical conclusion, without delay or dilution thereof. In the context of providing appropriate succour to the aggrieved litigant at the appropriate time, the learned Single Judge acted rightly. In all fairness, we must note that the learned ASG, during the course of arguments, did not contest the power per se of the High Court to issue the directions it did, except that the same amounted to denying the Appellants their discretion. As stated hereinbefore, we are satisfied that in view of the 1968 Order, the Appellants' discretion was not unbridled, and rather, it was guided by the 1968 Order.

8. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for

respondents, the said Judgment of the Apex Court is not

applicable to the facts of the instant case on two counts.

- 13 -

NC: 2024:KHC:31532

Firstly, there is no exceptional case made out. Secondly

respondent No.5 -Karnataka State ESIC Employees Union

is a registered trade union and is a private body not

discharging any public function. Reliance placed by the

counsel for respondents 9 and 39 on the Judgment of the

Division Bench of High Court of Madras in the case of

K.V.Sridharan and others Vs 1. S.Sundaramoorthy

and anr reported in 2008 (6) CTC 377 is useful, wherein

at paragraph 3, 4 and 5 the Division Bench of High Court

of Madras has held as under:

3. Admittedly, the said Union is a Registered Trade Union. Once a trade union is registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, it becomes a body corporate under Section 13 of the said Act by the name under which it is registered and thereafter it has a perpetual succession and common seal, and has the power to acquire and hold both movable and immovable properties and to contract and sue or be sued in the said name. Therefore, by way of registration of a trade union under the said Act, the trade union does not become an Authority under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It continues to remain just a private body and all disputes relating to election of such a private body cannot be canvassed or challenged in a writ petition. The said Act does not make any provision for recognition of such a union. Any recognition of union, even if it is a union relating to the employees of the Central Government, is governed by some departmental

- 14 -

NC: 2024:KHC:31532

circulars. Those circulars are administrative in nature and not statutory. Therefore, those circulars also cannot be enforced in a writ petition. However, unfortunately, with regard to disputes arising out of the conduct of elections of such trade unions for electing its Office Bearers, various writ petitions are filed before this Court and some of them are entertained. But in none of these cases, this question has ever been discussed. At least, no such decision has been brought to the notice of this Court.

4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, the first respondent before us, in order to sustain the maintainability of the writ petition, has drawn the attention of this Court to the Office Order dated 16.10.2008, by which an Ad hoc Committee was appointed by the Director of Postal Service, Head Quarters. It appears from a perusal of the said order dated 16.10.2008 that the said order was passed pursuant to some direction given by a learned single Judge of this Court. Learned senior counsel submits that since those directions issued by a writ court have not been challenged and those directions have become final, the present writ petition is also maintainable. We have not been told whether before passing those orders, the writ court had any opportunity to consider this question. In fact, on a perusal of the order dated 2.9.2008 in which the said direction was issued, which appears at page 30 of the typed set, it does not appear that this question was ever considered by the Court, when these directions were given by a learned single Judge. Since this point has not been considered by the Court, any decision of the Court cannot be an authority on that point.

5. We, therefore, hold that all disputes relating to holding of election of such incorporated bodies, which are nothing but private bodies, cannot be challenged before the writ court. If there are disputes between the parties over such election,

- 15 -

NC: 2024:KHC:31532

those disputes can be challenged, if so advised, before the appropriate civil court. Since we are of the view that the writ petition itself is not maintainable, this Court is of the opinion that no order can be passed in the writ petition on the dispute relating to the election of such trade union. It may be noted in this connection that these private bodies are not enforcing any statutory direction by filing such writ petitions inasmuch in the State of Tamil Nadu, there is no law relating to grant of recognition to a trade union, nor is there any law relating to holding of election of such trade unions. These matters are covered by general law and as such, the disputes in this regard should be settled by civil court.

9. There is no dispute of the fact that respondent

No.5 a registered trade Union being a private body cannot

seek intervention of this Court that to in its election

process after issuance of calendar of events under Article

226 of the Constitution of India. The remedy if any

available to the petitioners is before Civil Court that to

after completion of election process.

10. Petitioner not having made out any exceptional

case for interference, petition lacks merit same is

dismissed.

- 16 -

NC: 2024:KHC:31532