- (1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 12.02.2008 as passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Udaipur City-North, Udaipur in Civil Suit No. 13/2008 whereby the learned Trial Court has rejected an application moved by the defendants-petitioners under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('CPC'); and, while overruling the objection of the petitioners on the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to deal with the matter, has held that the suit in question is triable by the Civil Court.
(2.) The suit aforesaid has been filed by the plaintiff-non- petitioner No. 1 Rock Phosphate Mazdoor Sangh said to be a Trade Union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 ('the Act of 1926') while arraying the petitioners as defendants Nos. 1 to 3 and the State of Rajasthan as defendant No. 4 essentially on the submissions that the defendant No. 1 is a registered company and an undertaking of the State Government having several mines including those at Jhamarkotda; that the plaintiff being the representative of the workmen employed at the Jhamarkotda mines and at the corporate office of the company, was a recognised union since the year 1970 and more than 90% of such workmen were its members; that as per the written consent of the workmen, the defendants had been deducting the monthly contribution payable to the plaintiff union from their wages and were remitting the same to the plaintiff. It has been alleged in the plaint that due to the political differences with the ruling party in the State, the efforts were made to the malign the plaintiff union but the plaintiff maintained its hold and succeeded in the elections held on 29.11.2007. According to the plaintiff, on 01.12.2007, certain amendments were made in its constitution in the General Body meeting and such amendments were duly notified to the Registrar of Trade Unions that included increase in monthly contribution of the members from Rs. 10/- per month to Rs. 21/- per month. While reiterating that in accordance with the mutual agreement the defendants were legally and validly deducting monthly contribution from the wages of such members of the plaintiff union who had voluntarily submitted a written consent therefor, it is maintained that such deducted amount was being paid to the plaintiff and had been remitted until the month of November 2007. The plaintiff has further averred that the enhancement in the monthly fees was duly notified to the defendants with the written consent of 851 mines workers and 178 corporate office workers; that thereupon, the defendants published general notices at both the places inviting objections; and for no objection having been filed, sanction was issued for such deductions in the wages of the month of December 2007 as were payable in the month of January 2008; and contribution of 178 members working in the corporate office was indeed deducted and remitted to the plaintiff upon through cheque No. 3738 dated 02.01.2008.
(3.) The plaintiff has thereafter levelled allegations that the persons who could not otherwise cause harm to the plaintiff union misguided the Mines Minister and got issued a fax message on 26.12.2007 directing stoppage of such contribution and thereupon the defendant No. 3 has stopped making such deduction altogether. According to the plaintiff union, immediately upon noticing such facts, a protest petition was submitted to the defendant No. 1 and although the defendants also sent a report to the Hon'ble Minister clarifying that the deductions were justified yet, they were refusing to deduct such contribution from the wages payable for the month of January 2008. The plaintiff has stated several grounds to assert that such an action on the part of defendants was improper and illegal and that the plaintiff was entitled to have the defendants compelled to make such deductions and to remit the amount to it. The plaintiff has also stated that the dispute having arisen because of unnecessary and illegal interference of the State Government, the State was also impleaded as party defendant; and looking to the circumstances, an application under Section 80(2) CPC was also moved.;