- (1.) TARUN Agarwala, J. Uttari Railway Mazdoor Union is a registered Trade Union under Section 8 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (hereinafter referred to as the Union ). The bye-laws of the Union speaks of a three tier management system, namely, the Central Council at the Headquarters, the Divisional Council in a Division and a Branch Council which are attached to different divisions. Each of these councils has its own set of office bearers who are elected every three years. The present dispute relates to the office bearers of the Divisional Council at Moradabad. The plaintiff-respondent No. 1 claims himself to be the elected Divisional Secretary of the Divisional Council of Moradabad whereas the petitioner defendant No. 4 alleges himself to be appointed as the Divisional Secretary pursuant to the resolution dated 28-9-2003.
(2.) THE brief facts, as culled out from the pleadings is, that the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 was functioning as a Secretary of the Divisional Council at Moradabad as well as a working President of the Central Council at Headquarters. THEre were charges of murder, embezzlement and autocratic functioning against the plaintiff-respondent No. 1. It is alleged that several requisitions were made to call a meeting of the working committee of the office bearers which was not being done by the plaintiff and, eventually the general body of the Central Council, in a meeting held on 28-9-2003, unanimously resolved by a resolution No. 5, to remove the plaintiff as the working president of the Central Council as well as from the post of Secretary of the Divisional Council at Moradabad. By resolution No. 10, the petitioner was elected as the Assistant General Secretary of the Central Council and was further directed to work as the Secretary of the Divisional Council till fresh elections are held. It is alleged that the plaintiff respondent No. 1 did not hand over the charge of the working president of the Central Council nor handed over the charge of the post of the Secretary of the Divisional Council. Accordingly the office bearers of the Central Council, including the petitioner, filed Original Suit No. 138 of 2004 for a permanent injunction restraining the plaintiff- respondent No. 1, from interfering in the working of the petitioner as an office bearer of the Central Union. A further prayer was made that the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 be directed to hand over the possession of the fixed deposit receipts, official residence, telephones, car, etc. which the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 was using while working as the President of the Central Council. The record indicates that an application for a grant of temporary injunction was also filed which was rejected by the trial Court by an order dated 31-3-2003. The appeal filed by the petitioner and other office bearers was allowed by an order dated 6-12-2004 and the respondent No. 1 was restrained from interfering in the functioning of the petitioner as an office bearer of the Central Council. The respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition No. 5277 of 2004 which was dismissed by a judgment dated 11-3-2005, against which, a Special Leave Petition No. 6425 of 2005 has been filed which is pending consideration before the Supreme Court of India, in which, no interim order has been passed as yet. Based on the aforesaid order of the appellate Court dated 6- 12-2004 granting an injunction in favour of the petitioner and the dismissal of the writ petition by a judgment dated 11-3-2005, the General Manager, Northern Railways, Headquarters at Baroda House, New Delhi, vide a letter dated 20-5-2005, accorded recognition to the petitioner as the Divisional Secretary of the Divisional Council of the Moradabad Division. Based on the aforesaid letter, it is alleged that the petitioner tried to take control of the office of the Divisional Secretary at Moradabad Division, which resulted in the filing of the original suit No. 381 of 2005 before the Civil Court. Moradabad by Sri Ram Prakash Sharma, the plaintiff- respondent No. 1, seeking a relief of a declaration that he should be declared the Divisional Secretary of the Divisional Council at Moradabad pursuant to the election held on 19-8-2004. The plaintiff- respondent No. 1 also filed an application for a grant of a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2 of the C. P. C. This application was rejected by the trial Court by an order dated 2-8-2005. The trial Court further stayed the proceedings of the suit under Section 10 C. P. C. on the ground of the pendency of the Original Suit No. 138 of 2004 before the Civil Court, Ghaziabad. The plaintiff-respondent No. 1 filed a Misc. Appeal under Order XLIII, Rule 1 (r) which was allowed by an order dated 22-5-2006. The appellate Court restrained the petitioner from interfering in the working of plaintiff-respondent No. 1 as the Divisional Secretary of the Moradabad Division. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the injunction granted by an order dated 22-5-2006, has filed the present writ petition.
(3.) HEARD Sri S. N. Varma, the learned senior Counsel assisted by Sri M. D. Singh Shekhar and Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, Advocates for the petitioner and Sri Murlidhar, the learned senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Bal Krishna Narayan and Sri S. L. Kesarwani for the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 and the Standing Counsel for respondent No. 4. Inspite of the service of the notice, no one appeared for the railways, namely, for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Sri S. N. Varma, the learned senior Counsel contended that the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 had no prima facie case in his favour and that the suit was filed by concealing material facts. It was contended that the plaintiff-respondent did not disclose the resolution dated 28-9-2003 of no confidence against him nor disclosed his removal from the post of the Secretary nor did he disclose that a litigation was already pending being O. S. No. 138 of 2004 nor disclosed that the order of the railway authorities dated 20-5-2005, whereby, the petitioner was recognised as the Divisional Secretary. Consequently, the plaintiff had no prima facie case in his favour nor equity or balance of convenience was in his favour for a grant of an injunction. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the question of the election of the office bearers of the Divisional Council taking place on 19-8-2004 does not arise inasmuch as the term of the office bearers under the bye laws of the Divisional Council is three years and that the last election of the Divisional Council, Moradabad was held on 18-2-2002. Since the term of three years had not expired, the question of holding an election on 19th August, 2004 did not arise. It was contended that the election of 19th August, 2004 was a sham election which had never taken place and therefore, the question of permitting the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 to be declared as the Divisional Secretary of the Divisional Council at Moradabad did not arise. It was contended that the railway authorities had never recognized the election of 19-8-2004 and the finding of the appellate Court to the effect that the election of 19-8-2004 was admitted by the defendants is factually incorrect. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further stated that the general body of the Divisional Council issued a resolution dated 16-6-2005 nullifying the election of 19-8-2004 and therefore, submitted that no valid election dated 19-8-2004 had ever taken place. On the other hand, the petitioner was elected to work as the Divisional Secretary till the holding of the fresh elections, pursuant to the resolution dated 28-9- 2003 and also on account of the fact that the petitioner had been recognized as the Divisional Secretary by an order of the railway authorities dated 20-5-2005.;