Bipin Kumar Singh vs State Bank Of India
2021 Latest Caselaw 6298 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                   Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19201 of 2021
     ======================================================

Bipin Kumar Singh S/o Late Kailash Prasad Singh Resident of Mira Sadan, Gola Road, Patna - 801503, at present, Chief Manager, State Bank of India (Stressed Assets Management) Branch, J.C. Road, Patna - 800004.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. State Bank of India 8th Floor, Local Head Office, West Gandhi Maidan, Patna - 800004 through the Chief General Manager.

2. Sri Shashi Bhushan Chaudhary S/o not known, The Assistant General Manager, Chairman Election committee (HR), Local Head Office, State Bank of India, West Gandhi Maidan, Patna - 800001.

3. Chandra Shekhar Singh A.G.M. (Agri), Fathers Name - Not known, Member, Election Committee, Local Head Office, State Bank of India, West Gandhi Maidan, Patna - 800001.

4. Sri Ravi Shekhar, C.M. (IT), Member, Election Committee, State Bank of India, 4th Floor, Local Head Office, West Gandhi Maidan, Patna - 80004.

5. Ajit Kumar Mishra, General Secretary, Central Committee, Fathers name -

not known, AGM (SLBC), Local Head Office, State Bank of India, Patna - 80004.

6. The Registrar / Additional Registrar, Shramik Sangh (Labour Union), Government of Bihar, Patna.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Umesh Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr.Rakesh Kumar, Mr. Rajni Kant Singh Mr. Kumar Saurav & Mr. Vaibhav. Veer. Shankar For the Respondent/s : Mr.Amish Kumar Mr. Apurv Harsh Mr. Mani Tripurari & Mr. Sujit Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH)

Date : 21-12-2021

The petitioner claims that he is holding the post of Patna High Court CWJC No.19201 of 2021 dt.21-12-2021

Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Stressed Assets

Management Branch, J.C. Road, Patna and a member of the SBI

Officer's Association ( in short Association), Patna Circle. He

further claims that he is contesting the election of the Central

Committee of the said Association, which is registered under the

Trade Union Act, 1926 (in short Trade Union Act).

2. This writ petition was registered on 16.11.2021,

after its filing on 30th October, 2021. From Annexure-2 of the

writ application, it appears that the programme for the election,

namely, "Triellial General Election- 2021-2024" of the

Association was notified on 01.08.2021 where the last date of

withdrawal of the nominations was fixed as 15.09.2021,

publication of list of contestants as 15.09.2021 and the date of

polling as 31.10.2021.

3. As would be evident from the cause title of the

writ petition, apart from the State Bank of India and the

Registrar/Additional Registrar, Shramik Singh (Labour Union),

Government of Bihar, there is no official respondents impleaded

in the writ application.

4. The petitioner after having participated in the

process of election by filing nomination papers etc, has filed the

present writ application, seeking following reliefs:-

"(i) To hold and declare that Patna High Court CWJC No.19201 of 2021 dt.21-12-2021

Clause 14(ii) of the bye-laws known as State Bank of India Officer's Association, registered at Patna Circle, being registration no. 1972/1975 in accordance with the provisions of Trade Union Act, 1956 is opposed to the principle of free and fair election and as such, it needs to be amended in consonance with the object to hold election of Central Committee of State Bank of India Officers Association in accordance with settled principles of law;

(ii) To hold and declare that any member who intends to contest the coming election should not participate in the selection of the members of the election committee nor the General Secretary of outgoing central committee who intends to contest in coming election in the Central Committee should not publish an election programme under his signature;

(iii) To hold and declare that Clause 14(XXI) of the bye-laws which permit the election committee for scrutiny of ballot paper may nominate independent observer, but not in consultation with a member of the outgoing central committee including the General Secretary who intends to contest election;

(vi) To hold and declare that selection of the present election committee of which respondent no.5 was/is the General Secretary and is presently contesting the election had participated in the selection of 3 members election committee (Respondent No. 2-4) and has published the Election Programme in his signature be declared illegal and malafide;

(v) To hold and declare that at Patna High Court CWJC No.19201 of 2021 dt.21-12-2021

the time and in course of the counting of the polled ballot paper/the candidate or his/her authorized representative should be allowed to participate before certifying a candidate elected;"

5. It is evident from the relief(s) which the

petitioner is seeking that he wants a declaration from this Court

that Clause 14(ii) of the bye-laws of the Association is opposed

to the principle of free and fair election and as such, it needs to

be amended in consonance with the object to hold election of

the Central Committee of the said Association. The petitioner is

further seeking a declaration that Clause 14(XXI) of the bye-

laws which permits the election Committee for scrutiny of ballot

paper, may nominate independent observer, but not in

consultation with a member of the outgoing Central Committee

including the General Secretary who intends to contest election.

6. A copy of the bye-laws has been brought on

record by way of Annexure-1 to the writ application from which

it transpires that the bye-laws were framed, way back in 1998.

The petitioner apparently, did not raise any grievance before

any forum in respect of the legality/correctness of the aforesaid

provisions of the bye-laws before filing this writ application,

that also after having participated in the process of election.

From reading of the averments made in the writ application and Patna High Court CWJC No.19201 of 2021 dt.21-12-2021

subsequently by the Interlocutory Application registered as I.A.

1 of 2021, it transpires that the petitioner has made several

allegations against private respondents. He is not seeking any

direction either to the State Bank of India or to the

Registrar/Additional Registrar, Shramik Sangh (Labour Union),

Government of Bihar, Patna (Respondent No.6) who are State

within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

7. After registration of the writ petition on

16.11.2021, the petitioner made an e-mentioning for urgent

hearing of this matter on 14.12.2021. The request for

expeditious hearing of the matter was accepted and accordingly,

the matter came to be listed on 17.12.2021. The Court at the

very outset, wanted learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf

of the petitioner to satisfy this Court on question of

maintainability of the writ application involving election

disputes in relation to internal affairs of a private Association

discharging no public function.

8. Mr. Umesh Prasad Singh, learned Senior

Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner while contending

that this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India is maintainable, has vehemently argued that as the

petitioner has no alternative statutory remedy against the Patna High Court CWJC No.19201 of 2021 dt.21-12-2021

irregularities being committed by the private respondents, he

has a right to maintain this writ application. He, in support of

his contention, has placed reliance on Supreme Court's decision

in case of Maharashtra Chess Association Vs. Union of India

and others reported in (2020) 13 SCC 285 and a decision of

this Court in case of Mukund Ram Tanti vs. S.I. Raza

Registrar, Trade Unions, Bihar, Patna and other (AIR 1962

Patna 338).

9. Mr. Amish Kumar, learned counsel representing

the State Bank of India, on the other hand, has placed reliance

on a Division Bench decision of this Court in case of Bokaro

Steel Workers Union and anr. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.,

reported in 1995(1) PLJR 400 to contend that after considering

the earlier Division Bench decision in case of Mukund Ram

Tanti (supra), the Division Bench has specifically held that in

the absence of any provision in the Trade Union Act, any

dispute in relation to election can only be resolved by means of

a suit before the Civil Court.

10. The decision of Division Bench of this Court

in case of Mukund Ram Tanti (supra), as relied on by the

learned Senior Counsel does not support his contention in

respect of the maintainability of the writ application. In case of Patna High Court CWJC No.19201 of 2021 dt.21-12-2021

Mukund Ram Tanti (supra), this Court while considering the

jurisdiction of the Registrar of the Trade Unions has held that

Registrar of the Trade Unions has full jurisdiction to enquire

about the legality of the new election of the Office-bearers of a

Union only for the purpose of maintaining a proper register,

showing the names of the office bearers, who may be, at the

relevant time, required to comply with the provisions of the Act

or to deal with in accordance therewith. The said Division

Bench decision in case of Mukund Ram Tanti (supra) has

subsequently been considered by the Division Bench of this

Court in case of Bokaro Steel Workers Union and anr (supra),

and it has been specifically held in paragraph 22 as under:-

"22. On an examination and analysis of the Patna decision (Mukund Ram Tanti's case), the Allabahad, Andhra and the Madras decisions, I come to the following conclusions: (1) In a dispute between two rival factions claiming to be the office bearers of a union, it is open to the Registrar to hold an enquiry for the purpose of maintaining and up-dating the register as required to be maintained under Section 8 of the Act.

(ii) His decision in this regard shall neither confer any right on any person or group of persons nor divest any person or group of persons of Patna High Court CWJC No.19201 of 2021 dt.21-12-2021

any lawful rights.

(iii) Consequently the Registrar has no authority or power to issue any direction asking/advising the Labour Department of the Government or the employer to recognize and treat any particular person or group of persons as the duly elected office bearers of the Union in dealing with that union.

(iv) The Registrar, Trade Unions has no authority or power to direct the holding of election of the office bearers of a union under his own supervision or under the supervision of his nominee.

(v) In the absence of any provision in the Trade Unions Act, any dispute of this kind can only be resolved by means of a suit filed before a Civil Court.

(vi) The adjudication in a suit at least in this State is normally a slow and time consuming process and does not constitute a wholly satisfactory remedy for resolving the dispute.

(vii) The legislature will, therefore, be well advised to address itself to this lacuna in the Trade Unions Act and to take steps to remedy it which has been long, overdue."

(Underlined for emphasis)

11. This is also to be noted that learned counsel for

the respondents have referred to decisions of Madras High Patna High Court CWJC No.19201 of 2021 dt.21-12-2021

Court in case of K.S.S. Kowshik Vs. State of India in WP No.

18397 of 2016 decided on 10.06.2016 as well as Rajasthan High

Court in case of O.P. Gupta Vs. Union of India and others

decided on 14.09.2000 reported in (2001) ILJR 832 Raj,

wherein the Courts have held that writ petition under Article 226

of the Constitution of India raising election disputes in respect

of Association registered under Trade Union Act cannot be

maintained. We concur with aforesaid opinion in view of

aforementioned discussions.

12. Our attention has also been drawn to Clause 17

of the bye-laws which provides for a dispute redressal

mechanism in respect of any of the provisions under the bye-

laws. Clause 24 of the said bye-laws permits the Association to

amend, alter, replace, rescind or add the bye-laws at any time by

passing suitable resolution by a majority or the members present

in the General Council and/or Special General Meeting or

through referendum.

13. In our considered view, the Supreme Court's

decision in case of Maharashtra Chess Association (supra),

has no application in the facts and circumstances of the present

case to establish maintainability of a writ application, raising

purely election disputes of a private body. The said decision of Patna High Court CWJC No.19201 of 2021 dt.21-12-2021

the Supreme Court in case of Maharashtra Chess Association

(supra), has been rendered in a different context altogether. In

that case Clause 21 of the Constitution and bye-laws of the

second respondent (Federation) stipulated that institution of

suits/legal action against the Federation could only be in the

Courts at Chennai.

14. The High Court solely relying on the

jurisdiction ouster clause had determined that its jurisdiction

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was ousted. It is

in these circumstances that the Apex Court in the case of

Maharashtra Chess Association (supra) has held that while

exercising discretion in the matter of exercise of jurisdiction

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court

must look at the case holistically and make a determination as to

whether it would be proper to exercise its jurisdiction. The Apex

Court in the same case has reiterated the long settled legal

proposition regarding the writ remedy under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India being a discretionary remedy. In the

instant case the nature of dispute raised in the proceeding, in the

opinion of this Court, lies purely in realm of the private law. The

crux of the matter is that the petitioner is a contestant in the

election of Central Committee of the Officer's Association of Patna High Court CWJC No.19201 of 2021 dt.21-12-2021

the Bank. The election is to be conducted under the bye-laws

which, as per a bare perusal of the bye-laws itself, is subject to

amendment by a majority of the members present in the General

Council and/or Special General Meeting or through referendum.

The amendment to the bye-laws therefore, in terms of the bye-

laws itself is based on voice of majority to be determined in the

meeting as contemplated under Clause 24 of the bye-laws. The

democratic concept of the Union for amendment of the bye-

laws, cannot be permitted by this Court to be overcomed by the

petitioner by resorting to these proceedings under Article 226 of

the constitution of India.

15. The allegation regarding there being any unfair

means being used in the election process for subverting the

democratic process, as per assertion made in the writ petition

also, are raising disputed issues of fact.

16. In the opinion of this Court, therefore, the

petitioner, if, aggrieved by any terms of the bye-laws would be

required to resort to the mechanism inherent in its bye-laws for

its amendment. Otherwise, sufficient remedy is available to the

petitioner in view of the decision of this Court in case of Bokaro

Steel Workers Union (supra).

17. In our view, in the wake of the facts of the case Patna High Court CWJC No.19201 of 2021 dt.21-12-2021

as noted above and the law laid down by a coordinate Bench of

this Court in case of Bokaro Steel Workers Union and anr,

(supra), this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India is misconceived and cannot be maintained.

18. This application is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J)

( Madhuresh Prasad, J) arun/-

AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                N/A
Uploading Date          24.12.2021
Transmission Date