The main legal point established is that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 should be invoked only in extraordinary circumstances, and alternative remedies should be exhausted before approaching the Court.

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to set aside the order, dated 22.1.2010, passed in I.A.No.33 of 2010, in O.S.No.8 of 2010, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee.

2. The following grounds have been raised by the petitioner while challenging the order, dated 22.1.2010, made in I.A.No.33 of 2010, in O.S.No.8 of 2010, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee:

"(1) The order of the learned Sub Judge is totally without jurisdiction and patently erroneous.

(2) The learned Sub Judge has practically decreed the suit in the interim application.

(3) The learned Sub Judge failed to see where the amended Bye law 4 which was passed at the General Body meeting, held on 29.4.2009, had not bee challenged and that bye law had also been approved by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Chennai, on 23.12.2009. The learned Sub Judge had no jurisdiction to include the names of T.Panchatcharam and R.Andhidoss who had not been named at the General Body meeting held, on 29.4.2009, and to conduct the election, as per amended Bye law 4.

(4) The learned Sub Judge further had no jurisdiction to include the names of any other retired employees and other union persons and to conduct the election.

(5) The learnedSub Judge in the interim application had to only decide when T.Panchatcharam and R.Andhidoss had not been admittedly named at the General Body meeting held, on 29.4.2009, whether they can be allowed to contest for the post of President or honorary President contrary to amended Bye law 4. The learned Sub Judge has nowhere given a finding on this issue.

(6) The learnedSub Judge failed to see when admittedly T.Panchatcharam and R.Andhidoss had not been named at the General Body meeting held on 29.4.2009, for the post of President or honorary president he had no jurisdiction to direct their names to be included and also the names of person belonging to other union to be included and to conduct the election.

(7) The learnedSub Judge failed to see that the plaintiff has chosen to challenge only Bye law 4 and leaving other three bye laws unchallenged which were passed at the same General Body meeting held, on 29.4.2009.

(8) The learned Sub Judge s direction is contrary to the amended bye law 4 which was validly passed in the General Body meeting held, on 29.4.2009.

(9) The learned Sub Judge by directing the names to be included and also fixing the date for election as acted contrary to the General Body meeting resolution validly passed, on 29.4.2009."

3. The learned counsel Mr. N.G.R. Prasad, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, had submitted that a notice, dated 13.4.2009, had been issued, in accordance with the bye-laws of the Heavy Vehicles Factory Employees Union, Avadi, Chennai, stating that a general body meeting of the Union, would be held, on 29.4.2009. The agenda for the general body meeting had included the proposal for the amendment of Bye-law Nos.4, 11.A and 11.B of the bye-laws of the Union. Bye-law No.4 of the said bye-laws read as follows:

“Persons not actually engaged or employed in the industry with which the Union is connected may be admitted as honorary members of the Union for the purpose of serving as the Office Bearers of the Union.”

It was proposed to be amended as follows:

“Persons, not actually engaged or employed in Heavy Vehicles Factory, Avadi, Chennai-54, may be admitted as honorary members of the Heavy Vehicles Factory Employees Union bynames for the purpose of serving as the honorary President or President or working President of this Union by a resolution which should be adopted by the General Body Meeting of this union, held just before the Union General Election.”

4. The learned counsel had submitted that in the general body meeting of the union held, on 29.4.2009, Bye-law No.4 of the bye-laws of the Union had been amended and certain persons had been admitted as honorary members of the Union. The amendment of the bye-laws had also been regist