Allahabad High Court
B.C. Sharma Son Of Late Sri Mohan Lal ... vs M.L. Bhalla Son Of Sri Durga Das Bhalla ... on 11 March, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2005(2)AWC1032, (2005)IILLJ715ALL
Author: D.P. Singh
Bench: D.P. Singh
JUDGMENT D.P. Singh, J.
1. Pleadings are complete and the counsel for the parties agree that the petition may be finally disposed off under the Rules of the Court.
2. Heard Sri S.N. Verma, learned Senior Advocate along with Sri R.K. Singh for the petitioner and Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri H.P. Dubey for the respondents at length and perused the record.
3. Uttariya Railway Mazdoor Union, is a duly registered trade union under the Trade Union Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Union' and the 'Act' respectively). Its members are drawn from the Northern Railways and is managed by a Central Executive Committee (referred to as 'Central Council') under duly registered Constitution and its Rules and Bye-laws. The petitioner No. 1 was the elected General Secretary while the petitioner No. 2 was the working President of the Central Council.
4. The plaintiff-respondent instituted an injunction suit No. 128 of 2004 against the petitioner defendants to restrain them from interfering in the functioning of the plaintiff-respondents on the said two posts and also for a direction to handover all the documents, registers etc. relating to the Council.
5. Inter alia, the allegations in the plaint were that the Council consists of one President, working President, two Vice-Presidents, One General Secretary, one Treasurer and it works under the General Body of the Union. In accordance with the Rules, the Council should meet at least twice a year and working committee atleast once in three months, these meetings have to be convened by the General Secretary. Any meeting can be convened by the General Secretary within 45 days on a requisition made to him and if he fails to do so, the requisitionist themselves can call the meeting after due notice to him and any decision taken are binding on all concerned. It is alleged that the petitioners were not holding regular meetings and decisions taken were not being circulated amongst the members and they were involved in large scale financial irregularities thus there was large scale disillusionment amongst the members at large and in spite of several requests neither the financial statements were being disclosed nor the meeting was convened and instead they started involving themselves in groupism and to shield their illegal activities they adopted autocratic ways leading to large scale uneasiness and abhorrence and thus a very large chunk of the members decided to call a meeting to consider various serious allegations against them to save the union. Therefore, in pursuance of Rule 44, the requisite number of members intimated the defendant No. 1 to convene a meeting to consider a no-confidence motion against him vide notice dated 5.5.2003, but to no avail, therefore, another reminder dated 10.7.2003 was served to him but he did not convene the meeting for consideration of motion of non-confidence. Failing in all efforts, the members were left with no option but to convene a meeting themselves at Ghaziabad on 28.9.2003 after due notice was given to the petitioners and all other office bearers of the Council and Branch Secretaries. The said meeting was attended by 208 out of 388 members where a resolution of no-confidence was passed against them unanimously and it was duly intimated to all concerned, including the petitioners, but they refused to hand over all the papers, documents etc. forcing them to file the suit to restrain them from functioning as such and to deliver all the effects, including docs, registers, F. D. R's etc to the plaintiffs.
6. Along with the plaint, an application for temporary injunction was also filed. The defendants-respondents filed their objections to the application for temporary injunction denying the allegations made therein and setting up a case that neither any requisition was sent or received nor any such meeting was held. They further pleaded that the quorum for the meeting was not complete and several alleged participants had given their affidavits denying their presence.
7. During the pendency of the application some affidavits were received by post by the trial court and some affidavits were filed by the plaintiffs and defendants through their applications.
8. The trial court vide its order dated 10.2.2004 granted an ex parte injunction and restrained the petitioners from functioning as such. On 24.2.2004, the injunction was extended against the defendant No. 3, viz. the General Manager, (N.R) also.
9. Against the grant of exparte injunction a miscellaneous appeal No. 14 of 2004 was filed by the defendants wherein only the order dated 24.2.2004 was stayed but the injunction dated 10.2.2004 against the petitioners continued. However, after exchange of objections, the trial court vide its order dated 31.3.2004 rejected the application for temporary injunction. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs preferred Misc. Appeal No. 37 of 2004 which has been allowed by a detailed judgment and order dated 6.12.2004. This order is subject matter of the present petition.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that since the petitioners were retired employees, therefore, in view of Rule 8 Sub-clause (c) read with Rule 42 Sub-clause (viii) of the Rules, they could not have been elected as members and then as office-bearers of the Council in the same meeting. He has also urged that the alleged requisition of the meeting was against Rule 44 (d) (e) and (f) as neither the notice was served personally on the competent authority nor he fixed any date, time and place, therefore, any meeting held in violation of the aforesaid provisions was a nullity and the alleged resolution would be void. Further, he has contended that in view of Rule 44 (h) all disputes were amenable only to the jurisdiction of the Delhi courts.
11. These three arguments have been jointly replied by Sri Varma, learned counsel for the respondents, who has urged that the aforesaid Rules were registered on 16.6.2004, therefore, they would not apply to the present controversy.
12. From the record, it is evident that the three arguments noted, hereinabove, were neither raised before the courts below nor have been taken in the writ petition. In the supplementary affidavit, the petitioners have alleged that the aforesaid amendments were made in the meeting dated 4/5th. July, 2002 and was sent to the Registrar, Trade Union for registration under Section 28(3) of the Act, who intimated its registration only on 16th July, 2004. However, Sri Nandan has urged that registration is merely a ministerial act and it would be deemed to be effective from the date the resolution for amendment was passed.
13. The approval or registering of amendments are covered by Section 28(3) of the Act. For ready reference, it may be noticed as below :
"28. Returns.-
(3) A copy of every alteration made in the rules of a registered Trade Union shall be sent to the Registrar within fifteen days of the making of the alteration."
14. The Central Government under its Rule making power has framed Central Trade Unions Regulation, 1938 wherein Regulation 9 provides to the following effect"
"9. Amendment of rules.- (1) On receiving a copy of an alteration made in the rules of a Trade Union under Section 28(3), the Registrar, unless he has reason to believe that the alteration has not been made in the manner provided by the rules of the Trade Union, shall register the alteration in a register to be maintained for this purpose and shall notify the fact that he has done so to the Secretary of the Trade Union."
15. Section 28(3) provides that every alteration or amendment in the registered Rules have to be communicated to the Registrar within 15 days, while Regulation 9 provides that on receipt of the amendment or alteration, the Registrar can register it and notify it to the Secretary of the Union. The Registrar has power to scrutinize as to whether the alterations or amendments are in accordance with the Act and Regulations. From the scheme of the Act, it cannot be said that the Registrar has only to perform a ministerial act, he would be within his jurisdiction to refuse registration of the alterations if it is in conflict with the provisions of the Act or the Regulations.
16. In support of his contention that the alterations will only come in force from the date it is registered and communicated to the Secretary of the Union, Sri Varma has heavily relied upon the ratio of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Indian Oxygen Ltd. v. The workmen (A.I.R.1969 S.C. 306). In this case, one of the specific issue was as to when will the alteration in the rules of a Trade Union become effective. The Bench framed a precise question in paragraph 9 of the report to the following effect, (only the relevant part is quoted).
"The question next is whether the union's constitution was duly amended on January 6, 1963 as claimed by the Union and held by the Tribunal."
17. In the aforesaid case, the question was as to whether the amendment made on 6.1.1963 and notified by the Registrar to the Union that could be considered to apply even before its registration by the Registrar. In paragraphs 10 and 11, the Supreme Court has answered the question in the negative and has held that the alterations would only become effective from the date it is registered and communicated to the Secretary. It would be appropriate to quote paragraphs 10 and 11 as under :
"10. Section 6 of the Trade Unions Act provides that a trade union would not be entitled to registration under the Act unless the executive thereof is constituted in accordance with the provisions of this Act, and the Rules thereof provide amongst other things for its name and the manner in which the rules shall be amended, varied or rescinded. Section 28(3) provides that a copy of every alteration made in the rules of a registered trade union shall be sent to the Registrar within fifteen days of the making of the alteration. Section 29 contains the power of the appropriate government to make regulations and Sub-section (2) (a) provides that without prejudice to the generality of the power in Sub-section (1) such regulation may provide inter alia for the manner in which trade unions and their rules shall be registered. Section 30(3) lays down that regulations so made shall be published in the official gazette and on such publication shall have effect as if enacted in this Act. In pursuance of the power to make regulations the Central Government framed Central Trade Unions Regulations, 1938, Regulation 9 whereof provided that on receiving a copy of an alteration made in the rules of a trade union under Section 28(3), the Registrar shall register the alteration in the register maintained for this purpose and shall notify the fact that he has done so to the Secretary of the trade union.
11. The combined effect of Sections 6(g), 28(3), 29 and 30(3) and Regulation 9 is that registered union can alter its rules only in the manner provided in these provisions, that is, it has to send the amended rules to the Registrar within 15 days from the amendment and until the Registrar is satisfied that the amendments are in accordance with the rules of the union and on such satisfaction registers them in a register kept for that purpose and notifies that fact to the union's secretary, the amendments do not become effective. The Union did not produce any evidence to show that the amendments purported to have been carried out by the said resolution dated January 6, 1963 were sent to the Registrar as provided in the aforesaid provisions, nor did it produce any communication of the Registrar notifying the fact of his having registered the said amendments. The only evidence it produced was its letter dated May 21, 1964 to the appellant company which indicated that the Registrar notified to the Union of his having registered the said amendments on May 13, 1964. The Tribunal's conclusion, therefore, that the union's constitution was duly amended on either January 6 or 21, 1963 or that, therefore, the Indian Oxygen Workers Union represented the workmen of the company's factory at Jamshedpur and that consequently it made no difference that the name of Indoxco Labour union as representing the workmen concerned was mentioned in the said agreement and the said statement and not that of the Indian Oxygen Workers union is erroneous and cannot be sustained. Any award, therefore, made by the Tribunal in these circumstances can operate only in respect of the workmen of the appellant company's factory at Jamshedpur and the Tribunal's extension of that award to workmen in the company's other establishments was clearly without jurisdiction. The decisions in Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. Their Workmen, (1960) 3 SCR 157 = (A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 777) and Ramnagar Cane and Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Jatin Chakravorty, (1960) 3 S.C.R. 968 = (AIR 1960 SC 1012) on the effect and interpretation of Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act relied on by the counsel for the union are beside the point and do not assist him.
18. Thus, applying the aforesaid ratio to the fact situation in the present case, it is crystal clear that since the registration and intimation of the amendment was in June, 2004, it would have no effect on the exercise undertaken by the plaintiff prior to it. Therefore, in my opinion, the first three arguments of Sri Nandan cannot be accepted on the touch stone of the aforesaid decision.
19. The counsel for the petitioner has then urged that the alleged Chairman of the alleged meeting dated 28.9.2003 had given an affidavit that he had neither attended the meeting nor presided it and the appellate court had erred in law in refusing to read it in evidence or believing it.
20. In reply to the contention that Sri Amar Singh has filed his affidavit disowning having attended or chaired the meeting on 28.9.2003, Sri Varma, after taking me through the discussion of the appellate court, has contended that the affidavit of Amar Singh filed by the petitioner could not be taken note of as it lacks in essential details and neither its date nor the place of being sworn has been mentioned and it is not properly verified. The appellate court has considered this affidavit. It found that the affidavit also does not mention as to before whom it was sworn. A five Judges Bench of the Apex Court in the case of A.K.K. Nambiar v. Union of India (1970 U.J. (S.C.) 189), while considering certain allegations made on affidavits, has held, "..................the reasons for verification of affidavits are to enable the court to find out which fact can be said to be proved on affidavit evidence of rival parties. Allegations may be true to knowledge or allegations may be true to information received from the person or allegations may be based on records. The importance of verification is to test the genuineness and authenticity of allegations and also to make the deponent responsible for allegations. In a sense verification is required to enable the court to point out as to whether it will be safe to act on such affidavit evidence. In the present case, the affidavits of all the parties suffer from the mischief of lack of proper verification with the result that the affidavit should not be admissible in evidence."
21. If the aforesaid principle of the Apex Court is applied to the reasoning and stand taken by the Appellate Court, it cannot be said that it has committed any manifest or apparent error of law. When this piece of evidence relied upon by the defendants was found to be defective and unreliable, the appellate court was justified in its stand and until the evidence is laid, this issue cannot be decided in favour of the defendants. Furthermore, Amar Singh had filed a subsequent affidavit to the effect that his earlier affidavit had been obtained by fraud and coercion, therefore, the subsequent affidavit of Amar Singh nullifies any effect that it could have had on the outcome on the issue.
22. The counsel for the petitioner has then urged that the appellate court had illegally discarded the 95 affidavits stating that they had neither signed the requisition nor attended the meeting and if those affidavits are taken into account, admittedly, the quorum for the meeting was not complete.
23. The same reasoning and the ratio of the Apex Court in A.K.K. Nambiars case (supra), will apply to the other affidavits. The court has considered nearly each and every of the 95 affidavits and has found that as they lack in proper verification, they cannot be relied upon and be read in evidence. The counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any error of law on this issue. The view taken by the court cannot be termed as error of law. For the same reasons, as given while discussing the affidavit of Amar Singh applies for these affidavits also. It would also be relevant to note that most of these affidavits were sent to the court through post and was not filed through any party or lawyer.
24. The Apex Court in Surya Deo Rai v. Ram Chandra Rai [2003 (6) S.C.C. 675], while dwelling upon the power of the High Court under Article 226, 227 and also while considering connotation of "error apparent on the face of record" and "patent error", has, after examining the earlier case law on the point, held that ".......error should be self-evident. An error in a long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions cannot be called a patent error"
And while summarizing in para 38 (5) it held, "Be it a writ of certiorari or exercising of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or of law and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law and to a grave injustice or gross violation of justice has occasioned thereby."
25. Applying the ratio in the present controversy, it is apparent that the approach and application of law by the court below cannot be faulted and the case would not fall in the category of "error on the face of record" or "patent error" as neither it is based on 'clear ignorance' or "utter disregard of the provisions of law."
26. Though Sri Nandan has gone in detail in trying to buttress his arguments that in view of the affidavits, the quorum was not complete and the appellate court was wrong in discarding it he has failed to make out any case for interference. As already held, the appellate court has given cogent reasons for disbelieving the affidavits and the reasons are supported by a Constitution Bench judgment, even otherwise the court while exercising power under Article 226 does not sit as a court of appeal. Further, at the interim stage detailed reasons are not called for as those while delivering the final judgment, which is yet to come.
27. It has also come on record and is not denied that petitioner No. 2 has been sentenced for life for murder of one Ganeshi Lal, another Union official, but he is on bail. This aspect has also been considered by the appellate court while considering the balance of convenience.
28. A feeble attempt was made to contend that the findings of fact recorded by the trial court has not been set aside by the appellate court. The argument does not appear to be correct as the appellate court has examined every aspect touched by the trial court and nothing substantial was pointed out during the arguments.
29. No other point has been urged.
30. There is yet another aspect to the case. The interim injunction was granted on 10.2.2004 against petitioners and it was extended to defendant No. 3 on 24.2.2004 against which an appeal was filed, though on appeal, order dated 24.2.2004 was stayed, but order dated 10.2.2004 was not stayed, In spite of the injunction the petitioner violated it with impunity and in fact also withdrew Rs. 1,50,000/- from the Bank on 6.12.2004. This fact in paragraph 23 of the counter affidavit has not been specifically denied in the rejoinder affidavit. Where a party does not obey an order of court of law, may or may not be allowed to defend himself without first purging itself, but it is trite that the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be exercised in favour of such a party.
31. The appellate court has considered the three ingredients for granting injunction and has given good reasons for holding that they were in favour of the plaintiffs and which have not been shown to be erroneous patently or otherwise, therefore, in my opinion, for the reasons given, hereinabove, the order does not require any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, on the facts of this case, the trial court is hereby directed to decide the suit itself expeditiously preferably within six months from the date a certified copy is presented before it and none of the parties shall be granted any adjournment. This petition fails and is dismissed, subject to the observations, but without costs.