SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Mad) 932

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
Ashok Leyland Employees Union Foundry Division, Represented by its President, Chennai – Petitioner
Versus
Muthukumarasamy & Others – Respondent
Review Application No. 122 of 2020 & W.M.P. Nos. 24320 & 24321 of 2020 in W.P. No. 16924 of 2020
Decided On : 05-05-2021

Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:B. Vijay, K. Chandramohan, Advocates.
For the Respondents:N.G.R. Prasad, R. Thirumurthy, Advocate, R.J. Radhika, Government Advocate.

Point of law: Election dispute which is sought to be resolved, the Division Bench was of the view that, the election dispute in a trade union need not be interfered with by the writ Court.

Headnote:

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Civil Procedure Code , 1908 - Section 114 - Review application – Writ petition to see that the election schedule to the petitioner union is issued forthwith and election is conducted within a time frame – Order of Court directing to consider the representation of the petitioner - second respondent Employees Union for issuance of election notification to conduct the election for electing the new set of office bearers for the next one year - second respondent Union shall act upon accordingly and necessary election notification to that effect shall be issued fixing the schedule for election – Hence Review

Finding of the Court:

review applicant has not approached this Court with clean hands, as he wilfully and purposely refused to receive the Court notice when it was served, of course through private notice. Having noted the developments taken place in the writ petition and after seeing the orders passed by this Court on 08.12.2020, belatedly has come out with this Review Application on the sole reason or intention to see that, the election to the trade union as per the bye-laws should not be conducted, so that the present set of office bearers can enjoy the position as office bearers without the sanction of the democratically elected method and for that kind of evil design, this Court cannot be made as a party and therefore, this Review Application is liable to be rejected.

Result: Review application dismissed

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 114 of Civil Procedure Code and Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to review the order made in W.P.No.16924 of 2020 dated 08.01.2020.)

1. This Review Application has been filed to review the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.16924 of 2020, dated 08.12.2020.

2. Before dealing with the grounds raised in this review application, the facts in nutshell which are required to be noticed as projected in the writ petition are as follows:

(i) that the first respondent herein who was the employee of the third respondent herein and member of the second respondent herein Union had filed the aforesaid writ petition in W.P.No.16924 of 2020, seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent therein, i.e., the second respondent herein to consider the representation of him, dated 14.10.2020 and to see that the election schedule to the petitioner union is issued forthwith and election is conducted within a time frame.

(ii) On considering the prima facie case projected by the writ petitioner, notice was ordered in the said writ petition to all the respondents.

(iii) Since the employees union who was the second respondent in the writ petition and the review applicant herein being the contesting respondents, when notice served on them, they refused to receive the notice on 28.11.2020. Therefore the returned postal cover with the postal endorsement refused, since had been filed before this Court, after having taken note of the same, this Court proceeded to hear the writ petition and decided the same by final order, dated 08.12.2020.

(iv) In the said writ petition, this Court, after having gone through the facts of the case as well as the relevant bye-laws of the petitioner union herein, also by taking note of the earlier orders passed at various occasions, which are similar to the present one, ordered the said writ petition by giving the following directions:

15. In view of the settled legal position and based on the Bye-laws, especially, under Clause 11, it become incumbent on the present office bearers to issue election notification to go for the election to elect the new set of office bearers to administer the Union for the next one year period, i.e., 2020-2021 and therefore, the said election due, even though is there for more than several months, though action has been taken by the petitioner, by giving request and consistently it has been pursued by him, no action seems to have been taken by the office bearers of the second respondent Union or the first respondent even after the representation dated 14.10.2020, hence, this Court feels that, the petitioner is entitled to get direction by way of mandamus as sought for. In view of the aforesaid observations, this Court is inclined to dispose of this writ petition with the following directions:

(i) That the first respondent is hereby directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 14.10.2020 and accordingly, suitable direction is to be issued to the second respondent Employees™ Union for issuance of election notification to conduct the election for electing the new set of office bearers for the next one year period i.e., 2020-2021, which is already in due, in the light of Clause 11 of the Byelaws and such indulgence shall be made by the first respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(ii) Once such a direction is issued by the first respondent, the present office bearers of the second respondent Union shall act upon accordingly and necessary election notification to that effect shall be issued fixing the schedule for election within a period of two weeks thereafter.

16. With these directions, this Writ Petition is ordered accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition also closed.

(v) Aggrieved over the said order passed by the writ court, dated 08.12.2020, the present Review Application has been filed by the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top