Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The suit is filed by Respondents Nos.1 to 6 for a declaration that Plaintiff No.1 as a registered Trade Union and its office bearers including Plaintiffs Nos.2 to 6 are entitled to participate in the meetings of the General Insurance Public Sector Association (GIPSA) in connection with the members of Plaintiff No.1, who are in the employment of Defendant No.2 throughout India in the categories of Class I, Class II, Class III and Class IV.

By prayer (b), Defendant No.2 has been restrained from denying the Plaintiffs their right to participate in the meetings of GIPSA in connection with the Plaintiffs' members. By prayer (c), Defendant No.2 has been restrained from taking any decisions regarding its employees in the meetings of GIPSA without the participation of Plaintiff No.1 as an approved and registered Trade Union and its office bearers including Plaintiff Nos.2 to 6.

15. At the meeting held on 8th January 2006, a new body / office bearers of Plaintiff No.1 was elected. Plaintiff Nos.2 to 6 / Respondent Nos.2 to 6 are the newly elected office bearers of Plaintiff No.1 / Respondent No.1. The resolutions were passed unanimously by 127 Council Members who were present at the meeting.

16. Thereafter the Plaintiffs called upon Defendant No.1 to hand over the record and the charge of the office of Plaintiff No.1 which Defendant No.1 refused to do. It is contended in the Plaint that Defendant No.1 siphoned substantial amounts of revenue of Plaintiff No.1 and was contemplating tampering with the records of Plaintiff No.1 thereby disabling the newly elected committee from working. It is submitted that Defendant No.1 has no locus standi to retain the records and the charge of the office of Plaintiff No.1. The main grievance of the Plaintiffs is that there are four public sector undertakings engaged in the business of general insurance including Defendant No.2 / Respondent No.7; that for the purpose of regulating uniform employment facilities among the employees of these four general insurance companies, there is a coordinating body known as GIPSA. Major decisions regarding the employment conditions of the employees of these companies are discussed and decided by GIPSA. Plaintiff No.1 and the other unions and Defendant No.2 participated in the meetings of GIPSA. It appears that Defendant No.1 informed Defendant No.2 about the said Suit No.127 of 2006 and the ad-interim order dated 3rd January 2006.

On the basis thereof, Defendant No.2 by a letter dated 10th February 2006 addressed to Plaintiff No.3 stated that in view of the ad-interim order dated 3rd January 2006, it was not releasing GIPSA' s letter for a meeting scheduled to be held on 13th February 2006. It is contended that Plaintiff No.1 being the only representative in the Class III and Class IV categories and further having a substantial representation in Class I and Class II categories, Defendant No.2 desired to prevent Plaintiff No.1 from participating in the meeting of GIPSA and had taken the said stand in collusion with Defendant No.1. This was despite the fact that in the said letter dated 10th February 2006, Defendant No.2 itself expressed an opinion that the meeting held on 8th January 2006 was properly convened. The Plaintiffs contend that it is essential that the new body be permitted to function especially by participating in the meetings of GIPSA which have a crucial bearing on the rights of the employees in all four categories.