1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. W.P.NO.661 OF 2009. Ramkripal Lalu Khursel and anr. ..vs.. Ramvtar Devangan, general Secretary MOIL, Kamgar... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's directions and Registrar's order. orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.V.S.Kukdey, Adv. for the petitioners. Mr.S.D.Thakur, Adv. for the respondents. Coram : C.L.PANGARKAR, J. Dated : 14th JULY, 2009. 1. This writ petition challenges the order passed by the Industrial Court in Trade Union Case No.1 of 2006. The petitioner claims to be the member of the recognized Trade Union. The elections for the Executive Committee for the Trade Union had taken place on 15/9/2002. Accordingly, the said body has assumed the charge. It is not in dispute that there were subsequent minor changes in the constitution of the executive Committee. It appears that on 2 24/4/2005 the Secretary of the said Trade Union issued a notice of meeting to be held on 30/11/2005. Many subjects were to be discussed in the said meeting. In the said meeting, no-confidence-motion was also moved and the said no confidence motion was in fact passed. After the said no-confidence-motion was passed, the matter was referred to the Deputy Registrar of the Trade Union for referring the dispute to the Industrial court to answer the reference as to whether the expulsion of the present petitioners was in accordance with the bye-laws of the trade Union or not. The Deputy Registrar referred the said dispute to the Industrial court to answer the reference as to whether the expulsion was in accordance with the bye- laws of the said Union or not. 2. The learned Member of the Industrial Court rejected the reference and the petitioners feel aggrieved. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the respondents. 4. Shri Kukdey, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Member of the Industrial court has 3 not in fact tried to answer the reference made to him, in as much as, he has not at all considered the bye-laws and has not considered the question as to whether the expulsion had taken place in accordance with the provisions in the bye-laws or not. He submits that due to this reason alone the order of the Industrial court should be set aside. He had particularly brought to my notice bye-law no.7 and bye-law no.7, according to Mr.Kukday, contemplates that if the President, Secretary or General Secretary are to be removed, they can be so removed only by 3/4 th majority of the General Body. He submits that this provision has not at all been considered by the learned judge. Mr.Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the court need not go into the provisions of bye-law 7 at all but should consider the provisions of bye-law no. 6 in the bye- laws. According to him, every member of the executive committee is deemed to have demitted or vacated his office after three years because of the fact that he is supposed to hold the said office only for a period of three years. 5. After having gone through bye-law 6 of the said bye-laws, it is apparent that the president, General Secretary and the working president can hold the office 4 only for a period of three years and the rule further contemplates vacation of such office automatically. Since the elections were held on 15/9/2002, it is very clear that their term expired on 15/9/2005. Since the term of all office bearers i.e. the petitioners and the respondents had expired on 15/9/2005, there was in fact no question of any body passing any resolution of no confidence. They had ceased to hold the office itself and therefore passing of such resolution was illegal. In fact, I may further observe that the Deputy Registrar, Trade Union ought not to have made reference to the Industrial court because of the fact that bye-law no.6 contemplates deemed vacation of the office at the end of the term of the office after three years. There was therefore no point to refer the said dispute to the Industrial court at all. In the circumstances, the order passed by the learned member of the Industrial court is set aside with a declaration that all office bearers of Trade Union are deemed to have vacated their office w.e.f. 15/9/2005. The consent letter is also, therefore, quashed and set aside. Petition is thus disposed off. JUDGE chute