Back
2016 Supreme(Cal) 293
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
SOUMEN SEN, J.
Nripen Pyne & Ors. - Petitioners
Vs.
All India Bank of India SC/ST/OBC Employees’ Association (Eastern Zone) & Ors. - Opposite Parties
C.O. 1128 of 2016
Decided On : 28-06-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Kaustav Chandra Das, Mr. Souvik Sen
For the Opposite Party : Mr. Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, Mr. Sourav Chaudhuri
The court held that the Trial Court had exceeded its jurisdiction in permitting the plaintiff to contest the post of General Secretary of the Association in the election, as the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court had restricted the plaintiff's right to cast vote only.
Headnote:
ELECTION DISPUTE - SUIT FOR CONTROL OF ASSOCIATION - VALIDITY OF MEMBERSHIP - LIFE MEMBERSHIP - INTERPRETATION OF RULES - COURT'S JURISDICTION.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a former General Secretary of the Association, filed a suit alleging that the defendants were denying his right to convene meetings and that the notice issued by the defendant as Joint General Secretary was illegal. The defendants contended that the plaintiff had retired from service and was no longer a member of the Association.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the plaintiff was still a member of the Association after his retirement and that he had the authority to act as General Secretary till the formation of a new committee. The court also held that the Trial Court had exceeded its jurisdiction in permitting the plaintiff to contest the post of General Secretary in the election, as the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court had restricted the plaintiff's right to cast vote only.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff was still a member of the Association after his retirement? 2. Whether the plaintiff had the authority to act as General Secretary till the formation of a new committee? 3. Whether the Trial Court had jurisdiction to permit the plaintiff to contest the post of General Secretary in the election?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court found that there was no provision in the Constitution of the Association that a member would cease to be a member after retirement from service. 2. The court held that the plaintiff had continued to act as General Secretary till 12th January, 2011 and hence would be allowed to continue to function till the new committee is formed. 3. The court held that the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court had restricted the plaintiff's right to cast vote only and that the Trial Court had exceeded its jurisdiction in permitting the plaintiff to contest the post of General Secretary in the election.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revisional application in part and set aside the portion of the impugned order permitting the plaintiff to contest the post of General Secretary of the Association. The other directions were to remain.
This revisional application is directed against the order dated 10th March, 2016 passed in connection a petition filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the plaintiff no. 2, Krishnapada Roy, praying for the following directions upon the Special Officer:-A) to accept the nomination papers of the plaintiff no. 2 for the post of General Secretary being a life member of the All India Bank of India SC/ST/OBC employees Association (Eastern Zone) & Anr; B) to hold extra ordinary general meeting and the election on the basis of list of members as on this date and not on the basis of list of members of 2013; C) to invite fresh nomination of the candidates for the respective posts of the Executive Committee of the Association; D) to hold extra ordinary general meeting and also the election in strict compliance of the Rules and Byelaws of the Association (plaintiff no. 1).
2. The suit concerns control of the Eastern Zone Branch of the All India Bank of India SC/ST/OBC Employees’ Association. The plaintiff no. 2 was a General Secretary of the said Association elected in the year 2008 for a period of three years. The plaintiff filed a suit alleging that as per the Rules he is the only person to convene executive committee meeting and general body meeting of the eastern zone and the defendants however are denying such right of the plaintiff and the issuance of notice by the defendant no. 1 on 3rd September, 2011 in the capacity as Joint General Secretary was illegal.
3. The defendant no. 1 being the Joint General Secretary has no authority to convene any meeting of the Executive Committee and that the plaintiff no. 2 is the only person authorized to convene any such meeting. He raises several claims.
4. The defendants contended that the plaintiff no. 2 has retired from his service in September, 2010 and after retirement from his service he is not the member of the plaintiff no. 1, Association and as such he has ceased to be the General Secretary of the Association. It is further contended that the plaintiff no. 2 did not deposit the requisite fees for life membership of the Association.
5. Plaintiff no. 2 was elected as General Secretary on 13th August, 2008 and his tenure ended on 12th January, 2011. No election was held after 12th January, 2011 till the purported election held on 27th November, 2011 at the behest of the defendants.
6. If the tenure of the plaintiff no. 2 as General Secretary has ended on 12th January, 2011, then the tenure of the defendant no. 1 as Joint General Secretary would also be ended on 12th January, 2011 and if the plaintiff no. 2 cannot be considered as General Secretary after 12th January, 2011, then the defendant no. 1 on the same reasoning also would not have any authority to issue notice dated 5th September, 2011 as Joint General Secretary. He was elected as Joint General Secretary in the year 2008 whose terms as per rules ended on 12th January, 2011. It further appears from record that in spite of retirement of the plaintiff no. 2 from his service on September, 2010 he was functioning as General Secretary of the Association till 12th January, 2011.
7. If the plaintiff no. 2 could act as General Secretary of the Association till 12th January, 2011 in spite of his retirement in September, 2010, it could not be said that due to his retirement from service in September, 2010 he has no authority to act as General Secretary after 12th January, 2011. If the authority of plaintiff no. 2 to act as General Secretary till 12th January, 2011 in spite of his retirement in September, 2010 be considered as legal and valid, he must be accepted as General Secretary of the Association after 12th January, 2011 till the formation of a new committee by way of an election.
8. The issue is as to whether the plaintiff no. 2 was still a member of the Association after his retirement in September, 2010 has been taken up at various stages in the earlier proceedings.
9. In several interlocutory orders passed before
