Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—Uttari Railway Mazdoor Union is a registered Trade Union under section 8 of the Trade Unions Act 1926 (hereinafter referred to as the Union). The bye-laws of the Union speaks of a three tier management system, namely, the Central Council at the Headquarters, the Divisional Council in a Division and a Branch Council which are attached to different divisions. Each of these councils has its own set of office bearers who are elected every three years. The present dispute relates to the office bearers of the Divisional Council at Moradabad. The plaintiff-respondent No. 1 claims himself to be the elected Divisional Secretary of the Divisional Council of Moradabad whereas the petitioner defendant No. 4 alleges himself to be appointed as the Divisional Secretary pursuant to the resolution dated 28.9.2003.

2. The brief facts, as culled out from the pleadings is, that the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 was functioning as a Secretary of the Divisional Council at Moradabad as well as a working President of the Central Council at Headquarters. There were charges of murder, embezzlement and autocratic functioning against the plaintiff-respondent No. 1. It is alleged that several requisitions were made to call a meeting of the working committee of the office bearers which was not being done by the plaintiff and, eventually the general body of the Central Council, in a meeting held on 28.9.2003, unanimously resolved by a resolution No. 5, to remove the plaintiff as the working president of the Central Council as well as from the post of Secretary of the Divisional Council at Moradabad. By resolution No. 10, the petitioner was elected as the Assistant General Secretary of the Central Council and was further directed to work as the Secretary of the Divisional Council till fresh elections are held. It is alleged that the plaintiff respondent No. 1 did not hand over the charge of the working president of the Central Council nor handed over the charge of the post of the Secretary of the Divisional Council. Accordingly the office bearers of the Central Council, including the petitioner, filed Original Suit No. 138 of 2004 for a permanent injunction restraining the plaintiff-respondent No. 1, from interfering in the working of the petitioner as an office bearer of the Central Union. A further prayer was made that the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 be directed to hand over the possession of the fixed deposit receipts, official residence, telephones, car, etc. which the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 was using while working as the President of the Central Council.

3. The record indicates that an application for a grant of temporary injunction was also filed which was rejected by the trial court by an order dated 31.3.2003. The appeal filed by the petitioner and other office bearers was allowed by an order dated 6.12.2004 and the respondent No. 1 was restrained from interfering in the functioning of the petitioner as an office bearer of the Central Council. The respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition No. 5277 of 2004 which was dismissed by a judgment dated 11.3.2005, against which, a Special Leave Petition No. 6425 of 2005 has been filed which is pending consideration before the Supreme Court of India, in which, no interim order has been passed as yet.

4. Based on the aforesaid order of the appellate court dated 6.12.2004 granting an injunction in favour of the petitioner and the dismissal of the writ petition by a judgement dated 11.3.2005, the General Manager, Northern Railways, Headquarters at Baroda House, New Delhi, vide a letter dated 20.5.2005, accorded recognition to the petitioner as the Divisional Secretary of the Divisional Council of the Moradabad Division. Based on the aforesaid letter, it is alleged that the petitioner tried to take control of the office of the Divisional Secretary at Moradabad Division, which resulted in the filing of the original suit No. 381 of 2005 before the Civil Court, Moradabad by Sri Ram Pra