THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD WRIT APPEAL Nos.434 and 435 of 2011 Date:20.07.2011 Between: K.Ramakoteswara Rao and another ..Appellants And G.Ramesh Babu and others ..Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD WRIT APPEAL Nos.434 and 435 of 2011 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) These appeals are by respondent Nos.4 and 3 respectively in W.P.No.12917 of 2011, wherein by the order dated 08.06.2011, the learned single Judge, in substance, directed the appellant in W.A.No.435 of 2011 to convene a meeting of its Executive Committee on or before 30.06.2011 and to ensure that elections to its Office Bearers are completed on or before 31.07.2011. The writ petition was filed against the letter dated 21.04.2011 of the Commissioner of Labour, the third respondent herein addressed to one M.Srinivas described as Member of All India Andhra Bank Officers Federation (appellant in W.A.No.435 of 2011). The letter was in response to the representation dated 28.01.2011 of Srinivas. The addressee (Srinivas) was advised to approach an appropriate Court for necessary relief in the matter of intra union rivalry. It would appear that in the elections held in 2008 to the All India Andhra Bank Officers’ Federation (for short ‘Federation’) (a non- statutory body), whose internal affairs are governed by non-statutory bye-laws, Office Bearers of the Executive Committee of the Federation were elected. The bye-laws prescribe a term of three years as the tenure of the elected Executive Committee. Despite completion of the tenure, fresh elections were not held. The writ petitioners aggrieved by the non conduct of elections for electing a new Executive Committee on completion of the tenure of the earlier Committee and perhaps desirous of contesting the elections if held, moved the writ petition aggrieved by the letter addressed by the Commissioner of Labour, whereby, the Commissioner declined to adjudicate upon the intra union rivalries pertaining to the Federation and which rivalries perhaps resulted in elections not being held in accordance with the tenure prescribed in non-statutory bye-laws of the Federation. The learned single Judge issued directions to the Federation to convene a meeting of the Executive Committee and to ensure that elections are completed by 31.07.2011. The appellant in W.A.No.434 of 2011, who claims to be the General Secretary of the Federation (in the context of the writ petitioners’ assertion that the term of the Executive Committee itself is over) is aggrieved that the de facto status of the management of the Federation would cease to operate if elections are held. In these appeals directed against the interlocutory order, we are not concerned whether the expectations of the appellant in W.A.No.434 of 2011 (fourth respondent in the writ petition) are legitimate or otherwise as regards his de facto functioning as a Secretary of the Federation nor are we concerned with the aspirations of respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein - writ petitioners with regard to non conduct of elections in time to the Federation, in transgression of its non statutory bye-laws. Sri C.Raghu, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 – writ petitioners, would strenuously contend that the Commissioner of Labour erred in declining to act upon the strife between Members of the Federation, which resulted in elections not held in accordance with the tenure prescribed in the Federation bye-laws. Sri C.Raghu would however fairly concede the position that there is no statutory obligation inhering the Commissioner of Labour in terms of the Trade Union Act, 1926 (for short ‘the Act’), to monitor or regulate the elections. He would however contend that the Commissioner of Labour has an implied obligation having regard to the purposes for which 1926 Act was conceived i.e., to maintain harmony in the trade union and that this implied obligation would extend to authorize the Commissioner to adjudicate upon the intra union rivalries and ensure that elections are conducted in accordance with the tenure prescribed in its bye-laws. From the rival contentions urged in these appeals, it is apparent that a serious question as to the maintainability of the writ petition, against the letter of the Commissioner of Labour dated 21.04.2011 is in issue. For the aforesaid reasons, we are inclined to set aside the order dated 08.06.2011, against which these appeals are filed. The learned single Judge may consider whether the writ petition itself is maintainable and on recording findings thereon, may consider passing an interlocutory or final order as discretion recommends. Subject to the above, these Writ Appeal are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ GODA RAGHURAM, J ________________ P.DURGA PRASAD, J 20th July, 2011 GHN