Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

22. I have given my considerate thought to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned Counsels and also considered the large number of decisions cited before me. The learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and confirmed in toto the decision of the Trial Court. It appears from the judgment of the Court below that the petitioner-Union's Executive Committee was duly elected at the General Meeting held on 27th July, 1987 and reelected in the Annual General Meeting on 30th June, 1988. This has been described by the learned Judge as "the admitted position" but the said election was seriously challenged by the opposite-parties Nos. 1 to 13 (the defendants in the Trial Court). The reelection on 30th June, 1988 for the year 1988-89 was attended by about 1200 members who were signatories to the unanimous resolution passed in favour of the petitioner' Executive Committee. And according to the learned Judge himself this unanimous nature of resolution adopted by 1200 members of the union must be deemed that the petitioner-Union's Executive Committee was reelected by majority of votes and there was substantial compliance of the provisions of the constitution of the said trade union. It also appears from the judgment of the learned Judge that the constitution of the trade union enjoins that a Special General Meeting may be convened by the General Secretary or in his absence by one of the Assistant Secretaries with seven day's notice and two-thirds members will form the quorum. The Special General Meeting that was held on 16th August, 1988 was definitely not convened by the General Secretary or any Assistant Secretary with seven day's notice and the learned Judge himself came to the conclusion that the Special General Meeting held on 16th August, 1989 where opposite-parties Nos. 1 to 13 were elected to the new Executive Body was not convened in accordance with the provisions of the constitution of the Union and as such the petitioners have an ex facie case to go in for trial. In spite of this hard fact on record the learned Judge dismissed the appeal of the petitioner on the plea that the new Executive Committee of the opposite-parties Nos. 1 to 13 was in actual possession of the office of the Executive Committee of the union and if they are restrained from functioning then the employees at large and the Company would be put to immense inconvenience. Further, the learned Judge took the point that the petitioner did not pray for setting aside the election of opposite-parties Nos. 1 to 13 and as such suit as framed is barred Under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. One further point was taken of delay on the part of the plaintiff-petitioner that the opposite-parties Nos. 1 to 13 were elected on 16th August, 1988 and they as new Executive Committee started functioning whereas the suit was filed on 23rd August, 1988. The delay as shown by the learned Judge appears to be of seven days only. It appears from a perusal of the judgments of the Courts below that both the learned Munsif and the learned Judge exercised their discretionary jurisdiction in rejecting the petitioners' prayer for temporary injunction.