Delhi High Court
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. vs Registrar, Trade Unions Govt. Of Nct Of ... on 16 September, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
Bench: Valmiki J.Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) No. 807/2011& CM Nos. 22453/11 & 1576/13
% 16th September, 2014
MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD. ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Saket Sikri and Mr. Vaibhav
Kalra, Advocates.
VERSUS
REGISTRAR, TRADE UNIONS GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI &ORS.
...... Respondents
Through: Mr. Siddharth Aneja, Adv. for Mr.
Sumit Chander, Adv. for R-2.
Mr. D.V.Khatri, Adv. for R-3 and 4.
Mr. K.K.Gautam, Adv. for R-5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the interim order dated 31.5.2011 passed in the suit. Petition is filed by defendant no.5 in the suit. Defendant no.5/petitioner is the employer. Suit was filed by one of the members of the union which is the defendant no.4 in the suit. The subject suit was a suit for declaration, CMM 807/2011 Page 1 of 3 injunction and rendition of accounts. The real issue is with respect to the claim of the plaintiff/respondent no.5 with respect to a particular post which was held in a Union of the petitioner company.
2. By the impugned order petitioner/defendant no.5 has been asked to file independent proceedings for challenging of the elections conducted on 11.5.2011, and to which order I cannot find any error inasmuch as surely in a suit which is filed by respondent no.5, if a fresh cause of action arises to the petitioner/defendant no.5 to challenge the elections which are conducted during the pendency of the suit, then, obviously such a claim would have to be filed either as a counter-claim or as a fresh suit. Issues which do not arise in the main suit cannot have any concern with the main suit and therefore qua such issues which have no connection with the main suit, there cannot even be a counter-claim and therefore there is no illegality in the impugned order which directs the petitioner/defendant no.5 to file appropriate independent proceedings ie a fresh suit.
3. Therefore, there is no merit in the petition because the impugned order rightly allows the petitioner/defendant no.5 to file a fresh suit with respect to the fresh cause of action to challenge the elections CMM 807/2011 Page 2 of 3 conducted on 11.5.2011, and which was not a matter in issue in the suit, though, there may be interim orders pursuant to which the elections may have been held.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also states that today the scenario has changed because now there is a totally new Union of the petitioner/defendant no.5 in place and really therefore once there is a totally new and separate Union, consequently the petitioner would in all probability may or may not have any surviving issue pertaining to the elections conducted on 11.5.2011 qua the different union and which is the defendant no.4 in the suit..
5. In view of the above, this petition is dismissed subject of course to the above entitlement of the petitioner/defendant no.5 to file a fresh suit or independent proceedings in accordance with law to challenge the elections conducted on 11.5.2011, provided of course if the petitioner/defendant no.5 so wants, and which it may or may not in view of what is recorded in para 4 above.
SEPTEMBER 16, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
CMM 807/2011 Page 3 of 3