Back
2015 Supreme(Kar) 1078
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (DHARWAD BENCH)
B. Veerappa, J.
Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Ltd. - Appellant
Vs.
S. Parasanna Kumar and Ors. – Respondent
RSA Nos. 5214 and 5215/2012 (DECLN. & INJ)
Decided On : 25-08-2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Chandrashekar P. Patil, Adv.
The civil court has jurisdiction to decide disputes related to membership and election of office bearers in a trade union, and the expiration of the term of office renders claims regarding the election process academic.
Headnote:
Election - Trade Union Dispute - Karnataka Trade Unions Election (Model) Rules, 1953 - Rule 3(1), Rule 3(2), Rule 5, Rule 6, Rule 42
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a Public Limited Company, filed a suit challenging the election proceedings of a workers' union, alleging that the elected President was ineligible and the election process was illegal. The trial court partially decreed the suit, but the appellate court dismissed the suit, directing the union to conduct a new election.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court found the election of the President to be invalid and restrained the President from acting as such. The appellate court, however, held that the term of office had expired and dismissed the suit, directing the union to conduct a new election.
Issues: Validity of election proceedings, eligibility of the elected President, jurisdiction of the civil court, entitlement to relief
Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court held that the civil court had jurisdiction to decide the dispute as it pertained to the membership and election of the President, not the election process itself. The term of office had expired, rendering the plaintiff's claim academic.
Final Decision: Both appeals were dismissed, and the union was directed to conduct new elections for the office bearers in accordance with the byelaws and the Karnataka Trade Unions Elections (Model) Rules.
B. Veerappa, J.
1. These two appeals are filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff against the common judgment and decree dated 14.2.2012, made in R.A. No. 66/12 and R.A. No. 58/2011 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Dn), Koppal, setting aside the judgment and decree dated 17.10.2011 made in O.S. No. 161/2009 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Dn), Koppal, decreeing the suit in-part.
2. The appellant/plaintiff filed suit in O.S. No. 161/09 for the relief of declaration to declare that the election proceedings published by defendant No. 2 in respect of defendant No. 1 Union in Form-A dated 10.09.09 are null and void and to quash the same and to declare that defendant No. 3 is not elected as President of defendant No. 1-Umon under due process of law and to further grant perpetual injunction restraining defendant No. 3 from acting as President of the Defendant No. 1.
3. It is contended that the plaintiff is a Public Limited Company having its factory at Bevinahalli of Hitnal village of Koppal Taluk and dealing with manufacture, production and sale of sale of pig iron and foundry grade castings and there are more than 800 workers in the said unit. Defendant No. 1 is the registered Union of workers of the company and defendant No. 2 was appointed as the Returning Officer of the Union to conduct the election proceedings of the union and defendant No. 3 is alleged to have been declared as elected President of the 1st defendant union.
4. The grievance of the plaintiff-Company is that though the defendant No. 3 who is not an employee of plaintiff Company nor he is Honorary member of the union, is not eligible to contest the election or represent as President of defendant No. 1 Union and even after receipt of objections, the defendant No. 2-Returnmg Officer has not at all considered the same and declared defendant No. 3 as only candidate for the post of President and declared him elected as such, in utter violation of mandatory provisions of Karnataka Trade Union's Elections (Model) Rule, 1953.
5. It is contended that defendant No. 1-Umon is having approved byelaws regarding appointment to the post of office bearers. The election to the union has to be conducted as per the Karnataka Trade Unions Elections (Model) Rules. It is claimed that as per rule 5 of the Karnataka Trade Union's Election (Model Rule), 1953, the defendant No. 2 shall prepare the voters list and shall publish by pasting it on the Notice Board of the Union and by sending it to the employer concerned for publishing the same on the notice board of the factory or other industrial concern. It is admitted that 2nd defendant has published calendar of events on 11.9.2009 and invited objections for the voters list published in the union. According to the plaintiff defendant No. 2 has not followed the prescribed procedure and has not furnished copy of the voters list to the employer. Therefore, the plaintiff filed objections on 19.9.2009 to the voters list published for conducting election to the office bearers of 1st defendant Union opposing inclusion of name of 3rd defendant in the said list on the ground that 3rd defendant is not a workman of the Company. It is pleaded that defendant No. 2 has not considered the objections submitted by the plaintiff and unanimously declared defendant No. 3 elected as President of the defendant-1/Union. According to the plaintiff, the procedure followed by the 2nd defendant in conducting election is illegal and null and void. Therefore, the plaintiff sought for declaration that election proceedings published by the 2nd defendant in respect of defendant-1 union on 10.9.2009 are null and void and defendant No. 3 is not the elected President of defendant No. 1 Union under due process of law and also sought for injunction restraining defendant No. 33 from acting as President of the defendant No. 1 union, etc.
6. The defendant No. 1 filed written statement and defendant No. 3 filed Memo adopting the written statement filed by defe
