1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT S.B. Civil Regular First Appeal No.128/1990 (Cimco Wagon Factory Mazdoor Sangh & Another Versus Cimco Shramik Sangh & Another) Date of Judgment :: 11th February, 2009 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. G.K. Garg for the appellants None present for the respondents BY THE COURT: The plaintiff-respondent no.1 filed a suit in the trial court with a prayer that suit be decreed in the sum of Rs. 10,600/- against the defendant no.1 and defendant no.3 may be directed to spend a sum of Rs. 21,200/- on the welfare of the labour with the consent of plaintiff. It was further pleaded that as per judgment dated 20th March, 1968 passed by Industrial Tribunal, 20% bonus amount was ordered to be deposited by defendant no.2- Company, but ultimately the said amount was allowed to be withdrawn to defendant no.2 and it was agreed upon that defendant no. 2-company will deposit a sum of Rs. 800/- per month. The defendant no.3 received a sum of Rs. 13,600/- 2 from April, 1970 to July, 1971, but the said amount was not deposited in the account of the Union. The suit was filed in the Court of District Judge, Bharatpur, wherein the plaintiff was impleaded as a party and thereafter the matter was compromised and the suit was decreed for a sum of Rs. 23,200/-, but the said amount was not paid to plaintiff and it remained deposited in the account of defendant no.1. The defendant no.3 withdrew a sum of Rs. 10,000/- illegally and misappropriated the same and a criminal case was also registered against him, therefore, a decreed be passed for Rs. 10,600/- i.e. 50% amount as plaintiff is also one of the union and in alternative the defendant no.3 be directed to spend the amount of Rs. 21,200/- on the welfare of the members of both the labour unions. The defendant no.1 and 2 did not file any written-statement, but defendant no.3 filed his written-statement, wherein he pleaded that plaintiff has no right or authority to file the present suit. The plaintiff-Union is not recognized Union. The Criminal case was registered against defendant no.3, but in the said case he has been discharged. The other contents of the plaint were denied and 3 ultimately it was prayed that suit of plaintiff be dismissed. On the basis of pleadings of both the parties, the trial court framed 11 issues, which are reproduced in para 5 of the impugned judgment. The plaintiff examined PW-1 Lalit Bihari, PW-2 Preetam Singh, PW-3 Raj Haran Singh. The defendants examined DW-1 Asharfi Narayan. The documentary evidence was also produced. The trial court, after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the finding on various issues framed in the case, refused to pass a decree in the sum of Rs. 10,600/- in view of the finding in respect of issue no. 6, but on the basis of finding on issues no. 7 and 10, directed that plaintiff will deposit court fee of Rs. 21,200/- and the said amount will be spent on the welfare of the members of both unions. It was also directed that the accounts will be taken from the concerned persons and ultimately the amount will be utilized for welfare of the members of both the unions. The suit was partly decreed, as mentioned above. Being aggrieved with the same, the defendants no. 1 and 3 preferred this appeal. 2. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that trial court has committed an 4 illegality in passing an order about accounts to be taken from the concerned persons. He contended that the said direction is without jurisdiction and the same is liable to be set- aside by this Court. 3. No one is present on behalf of the respondents despite service of notice. 4. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants in the light of finding of the trial court, particularly the finding of the trial court in respect of issue no.6, 7 and 10. The relevant issues in the present case are only issues no. 7 and 10. The trial court has considered the oral and documentary evidence in this regard and thereafter observed that the amount in dispute belongs to members of both the labour unions. The trial court has rightly passed direction that the said amount will be utilized for the welfare of the members of both the unions. Each member of labour union is entitled to see the accounts of the union, therefore, I do not find any illegality in the finding of the trial court even if a direction has been issued about rendition of the account of the union. It is the duty of the office bearers of the labour unions to furnish the accounts of the union and 5 to satisfy each and every member of the labour union in this regard. In these circumstances, I do not find any force in the submission of learned counsel for th appellants. The finding of the trial court is based on sound legal proposition and no interference in it is called for. 5. In view of above, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No. 91/1990 In S.B. Civil Regular First Appeal No.128/1990 (Cimco Wagon Factory Mazdoor Sangh & Another Versus Cimco Shramik Sangh & Another) Date of Order :: 11th February, 2009 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. G.K. Garg for the appellants None present for the respondents Consequent upon the dismissal of first appeal, the stay application, filed therewith, does not survive and the same also stands disposed of. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK