Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 1871
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.P. SAHI, SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, JJ.
M. Umapathy & Another - Appellants
Versus
The Joint Commissioner of Labour-I, (Registrar of Trade Union), Chennai & Others - Respondents
Writ Appeal Nos. 606 & 450 of 2020 & CMP. Nos. 6968, 8424 & 8426 of 2020
Decided on : 23-09-2020
For the Appellants :Perumbulavil Radhakrishnan, K.M. Ramesh, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Emalias, R. Parthasarathy, C.K. Chandrasekaran, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the jurisdiction of the writ court in relation to trade unions, emphasizing that writ jurisdiction has been extended to non-state actors only in respect of the exercise of public functions.
Headnote:
Trade Union - Jurisdiction of Writ Court - Trade Unions Act, 1926 - Sections 28, 22(b) - The judgment discussed the maintainability of a writ petition related to the functioning and elections of a trade union. The court held that the writ petition was not maintainable as the dispute pertained to the conduct of a general council meeting and the election of officer bearers of the Trade Union, which did not discharge public duties or functions. The court set aside all orders passed in the writ petition, including orders relating to the conduct of elections, and allowed the writ appeals.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the Registrar of Trade Unions to enquire into complaints and to conduct the General Council Meeting and election of office bearers of the Trade Union. The Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner to monitor the meeting and election, and eventually disposed of the writ petition by stating that an election dispute should be raised before the appropriate forum.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the writ petition was not maintainable as the dispute related to the conduct of a general council meeting and the election of officer bearers of the Trade Union, which did not discharge public duties or functions. The court set aside all orders passed in the writ petition, including orders relating to the conduct of elections.
Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the writ petition in relation to the functioning and elections of a trade union.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the writ petition was not maintainable as the dispute pertained to the conduct of a general council meeting and the election of officer bearers of the Trade Union, which did not discharge public duties or functions.
Final Decision: Both the writ appeals were allowed, and the order dated 21.02.2020 as well as all earlier orders in W.P. No.35349 of 2019 were set aside. No costs were awarded, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
JUDGMENT :
Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J.
(Prayer IN W.A.NO.606 OF 2020: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order of the learned Judge made in W.P.No.35349 of 2019 dated 21.02.2020 and allow the writ appeal.
W.A.NO.450 OF 2020: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 21.02.2020 in W.P.No.35349 of 2019 and allow the appeal.)
1. The Appellant in W.A. No.606 of 2020 was the Petitioner in W.P. No.35349 of 2019. He submitted two representations/complaints dated 30.11.2019 and 12.12.2019 to the Registrar of Trade Unions complaining about irregularities in the functioning of the All India Overseas Bank Employees' Union (the Trade Union). Being dissatisfied with the lack of response to the said representations, he filed W.P. No.35349 of 2019 praying for a writ of mandamus to direct the Registrar of Trade Unions/first Respondent to enquire into the complaints made by him on 30.11.2019 and 12.12.2019 and to direct the first Respondent to conduct the 36th General Council Meeting on 11.01.2020 and the election of office bearers on 12.01.2020 strictly in accordance with the existing Bye-laws of the Trade Union and not to permit any amendment regarding continuation of retired employees as office bearers of the Trade Union.
2. In the said writ petition, by order dated 06.01.2020, the Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner to monitor the 36th General Council Meeting at Thanjavur on 11.01.2020 as well as the election of office bearers on 12.01.2020 and to file a report thereon before the Court. Pursuant thereto, the Advocate Commissioner filed a report dated 27.01.2020. Written objections were filed by the Appellant/Petitioner to the Advocate Commissioner's report on 09.02.2020. Eventually, by order dated 21.02.2020, the Court took note of the fact that both the General Council Meeting and the election of office bearers were conducted. The Court also took note of the fact that the Petitioner and the contesting Respondent were taking contrasting and contradictory positions as to whether the General Council Meeting and the election of office bearers were conducted properly. Therefore, the Court disposed of the writ petition by stating that an election dispute should be raised before the appropriate forum in accordance with the procedure prescribed for such purpose. On that basis, the writ petition was disposed of. However, the Court directed the parties to maintain the status quo until 09.03.2020. Pursuant to the said order, the Appellant in W.A. No.606 of 2020 states that a civil suit has been filed to challenge the General Council Meeting and the election of office bearers. An ex-employee of the Trade Union, who is a 3rd party, filed W.A. No.450 of 2020 to challenge the order of the writ court. These appeals raise common issues; therefore, they were heard jointly and are disposed of by this common judgment.
3. We heard Mr.K.M.Ramesh, the learned counsel for the Appellant in W.A.No.606 of 2020 and for the first Respondent in W.A.No.450 of 2020; Mr.Perumbulavil Radhakrishnan, the learned counsel for the Appellant in W.A.No.450 of 2020; Mr.C.K.Chandrasekaran, the learned counsel for Respondents 7 to 16 in both writ appeals; Mr.Emalias, the learned counsel for Respondents 2 to 4 in W.A.No.606 of 2020 and for Respondents 3 and 4 in W.A. No.450 of 2020; and Mr.R.Parthasarathy, party-in-person for R-6 in W.A.No.450 of 2020 and R-5 in W.A.No.606 of 2020.
4. The first contention of Mr.K.M.Ramesh was that the writ petition was filed because the Registrar of Trade Unions did not initiate appropriate action in response to the representations dated 30.11.2019 and 12.12.2019. According to Mr.Ramesh, the writ petition was maintainable for the said purpose. As regards the conduct of the General Council Meeting and the election of officer bearers, he pointed out that the Advocate Commissioner was appointed only to monitor the conduct of the said General Council Meeting and election of of
