Judgment

P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, J.:- In this appeal the short question is whether the order of the High Court directing the Commissioner to prepare the electoral roll on the basis of the membership as on 20th April, 1969 is in accordance with the previous orders and directions of the High Court.

2. It appears that the second appellant is the trade union while the 1st appellant is the General secretary of the union. On or about the 20th of April, 1969, there were some disputes between the office bearers of the executive committee of the appellant of which the 1st appellant was the General Secretary and another set office bearers who alleged that they were duly elected as the executive committee of the union of which the respondent was the General Secretary. It is unnecessary to go into the history of the subsequent litigation except to say that two suits were filed by the appellant, one for an injunction against the respondent from interfering with the possession of the properties of the union in the hands of the 1st appellant and the other for an injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with their functioning as office bearers of the union. Injunction as prayed for in both the suite were granted. The respondent went up in appeal to the District Judge against those orders. The District Judge against those orders. The District Judge directed the holding of an election of office bearers of the union on the basis of the electoral roll to be prepared by an election commission consisting of three persons in accordance with the bye-laws of the trade union. Against that order, the appellants went up in revision to the High Court. The High Court varied the order passed by the District Judge only to the extent that instead of an election commission of three persons being appointed, only one person was to be appointed as a Commissioner to prepare the electoral roll in accordance with the bye-laws and hold the election. Till then the status quo was to be maintained. The Commissioner appointed by the Court entered upon his duties and in his report he stated that the respondent would not allow members to pay the arrears of subscription to the appellant because they did not recognise the appellant as the duly elected office bearer. As this dispute could not be resolved he settled the list of members of persons who had paid by then the subscription. There were 214, but the respondent wanted 288 more persons to be added as members. Being dissatisfied with the Commissioner s order which was approved by the Munsiff, four persons of whom the respondent was one went up in revision to the High Court against the final order of the Munsiff. The High Court allowed under those revisions and as already stated varied the lower court s order, to the extent that the Commissioner will prepare the electoral roll on the basis of the membership as on 20th April, 1969. Against this order, the appellant have appealed to this Court after obtaining special leave.

3. The dispute before us is whether subscriptions not having been paid as required by the bye-laws can the members who have defaulted payment of their subscription be members of the union? There is no doubt that if subscriptions are not paid in accordance with the bye-laws, persons who have failed to pay, cannot be considered as members of the union. The respondent says that when 1st appellant is not recognised as a Secretary, it would compromise the stand taken in the case if all their members were directed to pay amounts to the appellant. It may be noted that the respondent has produced no document to show that the subscription has been paid to him; on the other hand in accordance with the directions of the Court, the subscriptions have to be paid to the appellants. While so the appellants must also inspire confidence that on one excuse or the other he will not refuse the acceptance of the subscription and deny the respondent s supporters the membership of the union. He is bound to accept the a