BEST WORKERS UNION Vs. SHARAD RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Appeal from Order the appellants-original plaintiffs have taken exception to the order dated January 19, 2005 passed by the Learned Judge of the City Civil court, Mumbai. By the order impugned, the learned Judge has declined to grant ad-interim relief in favour of the appellants. The learned judge by exercising power under Section 9-A of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has framed preliminary issue as to the jurisdiction of the city Civil Court on the basis of objection raised by the respondents.

(2.) The appellant No. 1 is a trade Union duly registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. Appellant No. 2 is stated to be the secretary of the appellant No. 1. The respondent No. 1 was admittedly the working president of appellant No. 1-Union. According to the appellants, respondent No. 1 has been suspended from the post of working President. The challenge in the suit is to the notice dated january 5, 2005 issued by respondent No. 1 by which he is purported to convene a General body Meeting of appellant No. 1 on January 20, 2005 i. e. today. The challenge is also to ) respondent No. 2/defendant No. 2 acting as the Returning Officer. It appears that some of the members allegedly submitted a requisition under Clause 14- (B) (b) of Constitution of appellant No. 1 calling upon the President, the ; Working President and the General Secretary to convene a general body meeting and to hold the election of the office bearers and managing committee two days before the general body meeting. On the basis of said requisition the respondent No. 1 by notice dated January 5, 2005 has convened a general body meeting at 5. 00 p. m. today for transacting the business mentioned in the agenda incorporated in the said notice. The appellants filed present suit on january 17, 2005.

(3.) In the said suit, a Notice of Motion was taken out praying for interim injunction restraining the respondents- Defendants from acting upon the notice dated January 5, 2005 and from holding general body meeting. A prayer was also made for temporary injunction restraining the respondent No. 2 from acting as a Returning Officer in the process of election. The parties were heard by the learned Trial judge on January 19, 2005 for considering the prayer of ad-interim relief in the said Notice of motion.