HiGH COURT OF.JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI S.R.NAYAK, C.J. 1-"\'; wraTPETITIONN0.65420F 200S PETITIONERS RESPQNDENTS 1. SalJILawrence.agsd 43 years, S/o LateShri K.C. Lawrence, R/o Raihwav bunaatow No. C.T.42/2 Cont''e! Chsa!, Mahan Nsgar, Nagpur, Generai Secretary, South East Central Railway Men's Union: Styied wrongfy in fhs cause CUe of ttie impugned award as (Woridna Prssidenf) SECRMU, Guard (A), StC RaUway,Nagpur (5r. D.O.M. Office). 2. Shri Manoj Behra, President South East Csntra! Railway Men's union, Styled in the cause tide of the impugned award as (DMsional Co-oroinator) SEGRMu, Senior Goods Guard, CYM/SDL, SEG Railway. Versus 1. Subrato Mukheqse, S/o Laie Shri N.K. Mukhsijss, Aged 58 years. Guard. S.E.G. Ra'i'vray, Bitespur, Styisd wrongly in fhe cause tiUe of me impugned award as Subrato Mukherjee, aged 58 ysars, S/o Lsts Shri N.K. Mukherjee, Generat Secretary, {Mahamantri) & J.S. Chouhan, S/o Late Shri N.5. Ghouhan, V1ce President (Central) Zonat Offlce, Bilaspur (C.C.). Through: SouSi East Centra) Railway Men's Union. 2. Registrar, Trade UnionAct;1926 C/o Labour Commissioner's Offics, Gtenjali Nagar. Shantcar Nagar. Raipur{C.G.) 3. General Manager, South East Central Railway Zohal Office, Bilaspur {C.6.). 4, ;CHieT Personhsll -QfBeer, Sputh East GentTal"?'^£Bwa^?Slssgy^ 5. ©Ivisional Railways Maragsr^ (Psraonns!), Sisuth-IEa^ :©erttrai; Ratltray.BitaspurtG.G.): 6. ?t)i<insiongl Rai^^ ^er3onne^,;;SCT.ithKEast Centra! RajlvKay, Ratpur(U.t».), 7. ^Dhnsional Raihsays Manager, ^SFSonns!), SoySh East^ Csn&a! ^KailWay. Nagpur. Present: snri P. DivrakeirileaiTiiclj^ Adv<xate^ffi Shn S5 San^^ 'earoed ssuRse^lfcr^i^^Sffitfn&i's. ShriManihdraSMriSallava.leam^SrAdvocatswtthMrs. Smitha^haj,!sarhee!eounseIfoTp&spondenlNo.1. ShrfAmitChaudhan,leiamed StandingGounsel ferttle respondents—Raiiways. v ^ • Shr( Yashvrant Sinsh, learned Qovt^Advocate for tte State. •^.'.•^'••.((^^&ER):.' (Pas^sd on ^ February, 2<MW) Thisisanotherir^hceofa^TradeUnionmattyb^ anctland8din tsGQurtforjudicialreview<rfthequestionl.8.,betv^n^^^ Mramng groups, which flroup, whether Itiegroup headed by the petitfoners :.€'./•"..;.'.". .' " .. '."•' '•:':.•;. ".'":.•"-•••^••••-i ." ' .. •' ;'-' •"';'"':'::..:^..'.'."'..''^.' '••''"••:',\: y;^ g^D ft^Kled/by tfte.flrst respondent are legally elwte^ b^reFSofthetrtdeunforic&ne^e8^^ and highltght how ambition ar^ teKlesrten M capture ^ threwoiAlaUclsmocrate^noR^^ .bearersl'Qfpisi'lrailsiiS.ffitcW^HI^SMsW^M11^ '-M *" movenient in the industry and failing to protect the legiUmate interest and rights ofth6 members of the to-ade union. (2) This writ petition is directed against the aWafd of fte State Industrial Coyrt, ehhatti^arh, Raipur {fiy short "the InduStrial Court^ dated 20-12-20ffi, passedin Reference case hto. Oan.T.U.Act/1/2004, whereby and whereunder holding ftat the etecUon ofVhe pstiUoner No.1 and petitioner No2 as Gehsral Secretary and President of South East Gentral Raihiray Men's Unipn (fiw sftort "SEGRMU")as iltegal andftat thsfiret respondent herein isthe lawfut General Secretary ofSECRMU and entrusUng the management of SECRMU to the first responcfent ancl permitting him to hold <Tesh electibn to elect the office bearers of -SECRMU. •.- —:'..:.:•:. ; '. ^. - :•,":,: .:: ,. :-ffl: (3) The l?ackgrouhdtactsleading to filing ofthe writ peBtion, in brief, are asfollows: Irtitialty, there was only one union in ttielTame andstyte of SOuth < ' ' : . , : . : ::1'' Eastem Raihivay Men's Union (ft>r sftort "SERMU"). There was reoi^nisation ofRaih^ZoneS.asaconsequerK^ofwhichSERMU^ bifurcated and SECRMU came into existence. SERMU was a Tracte Union, registsred under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 ( forsAort " the Act'').BeforeformationofSEGRMU,atlthemembereofSECRMUWere themembetsdfSERMU. Withthedecistonofformafionofnewzones.the then Generat Secretary of SERMU, namely; Mr. J.M. Bishvras wrote a lettertothe Regis^rerftheTradeUnio'ns.thesscondrestxandentherein^ seeldngpermissiontotormnewunioiTOfbr^newzones,;^ atBilaspur/Outofthosepersonswhotntencled^ ::Al3l;':'ff^l;,&ISJIISVMJJB^II^^ -a'Ust Qf.propos^gfflc^iisarers^ith.ijl^RON^'unio^ ^a.:V!ew:'^fletting;^?^^|BBn|^j|||^|'»e<g|g|||in(|gBBiKWII^^ ^iii^l^Sl^i ^wss^^ss SliS'SB—iS » ^fesi^ji;^ w !l!!i;il' IBIi s thee!ee nsdonesul»equenttheFeto.tntheproposedbociy,petffi No.1 was the Woriang President, respondent No.1 was Ihe General Secretary and Mr. J^M. Bishwas was th^ President. Mr. J.M. Bishwas clied ori 30^1-2CK)3. AccOrding to ttie pe^ Mr. J.M. Kshwas, peUtiener No.1 bseame the President. At this stage itseH; it?isretevant?tQ,n6lK»thata ^ 11-07-2002 theSE©RMUvraisnot'inexistenceand aecordingto Shri MantndraShrivastaya,leamedSeniorCounse!fbrtheflrstresporKferrt,^ ^ formatfon of SE8RMU was only in the pipeline that is to say in ConteinplatiQn of^ieformation ofnew unipn. Furftermore, italso needs to be noticed at this stage itsetf that ths Railway Board orderad reorganisaCQnQftheunipnsonlyon 08^)8^002, After^^ directed reor^nlsation (rfthe Unjons on 08-08-2(XQ, the th^ Secretary of SERMU, Mr. J.M. Blshwas wrote a letter to the R^strar of Trade Unions seeking permisskwi for formation of new unions for ttienew zones includingoneatBitaspur.On21-11-.2002SECRI .lw@sregistered and its eoristjtution was appFoved. tecOKling to Bie petitioners, the new union SECRMU came into existence and started funetiohingw.e.f. 01-04- 2003. 1 (4) te;ording to the petitioners, the body of proposed office bearere formed in the meetmg held on 1 T-07^0<E was onlya temporaiy bpdy fermed fbr ttie pyrposes of resistration of ttis union and ?Eondircttlig elections, but, the first resjwndent dkl not conduct the eleetion and continued to funcHon as Geheral Secretery of SEGRMU. HoMrever, ftfri fff^;respcfl(tentwas^an'est^^^l-4.^|2^ 1uncter;Se(^on:^Q^4|@B!tt^g^iiB^gSI||li^s9Klii§ilffi SCT^^S:B WW'stlf^pion^iEjgBN 8i~3t""iff~ir'JI!18B^^M '©Sli'MallSKBI^KB! S^s^ fs»SVt*f:is^i:;^tiS!tiv'vVagy ^^i^s^ WSSSSSSas. iw»sm ss [ circumstemce, tile flrst iletttioner being the woridng President Was manafling the affalre of ttie SECRMU. According to the petiSonere, new elections were hetelon 26/04/2004 to elect ofRce bearers ofSECRMU and in that election, peUtioner No.1 was elected as General Secretary and petttionerNo.ZasPresident.lntimationofnewelScUonwasgiventothe second respondent wrthin the sttpulated time enchreing a tlst of elected (rfRce b^irers. After the election on 26/04/2004, even the Railway Authorities regjstered the change in SECRMU and recognizedffie new ofRce bearerefcM'the purpose ofTOllecthre ba^ When the matter stood thus, on 25/06Q004, the first respondent wras bailsri out. Ths first respondent filed Writ Petition No.1253 of 2004 in this Court for quashing the elecSonfteldon 26/04/2004. This Gourtlwiteonderdated 03/12/2004 disposed of the said writ petition witt) the following observations and directions: "Havihg heard teamedoounsel forthe parties and having regard to the (acts and clroumstances oT .case, as aii ttie electec) office bearere are subject tp reoognltton bythe Registrar, Trade Unions, ffieretOFe. uniess any cffioe tiearer is rasognized t?yth® Registrar, Trade Unipns, he has no right to funetion^s suoh. It is, therefoTe.dlrecteclthEARaiNeyAuthoritiesfrespqndent Nos. 1 to 5) snould dMlt wth only ttiose offioe bearers who are cecognized bVtheKeaistrar, Irade Unions. As, Shri Venna, submitsthataftemewelectionslistofnew office bearers nas already been submitted tp theRegistrar, Trade Unions along <wth applic^ion, ttie Regetrar, Trade Uniohs is direotec) to take ctecision on me said appiieation on its ywn mefit." As directed by this Court in the above orde^ the seeond re^ndent recognized the peBtionere as offlce bearers <rf SEi^My and^^^ 1%rm-E in ^our ^ Central RaitWay^M^'s|H(ffi^|tHR^R fi^:^ Sa:i^S?SWS :i%'fWtl®W "'w aasi ^i;?^£(|' ;j^ •Hlili.,! IM1B ^&^ f:;;' .^---—-—-JSBSiSsiil^^^^ .-> apRlicatioft under Sectfon 28-J of the Act on 16/12/2004. Subsequentty, theapplicattonv^amendedandthefirrtrespOT applicant-first party. Petitioners1and2 are respondents7and 8 ofttie sseoml Darty, respecUvely, before ttle Industnat Court. The relief sought bv e first respondent was opposed by the pedtionere by fiting written slatenient. The Industrtal Court passed the avrardon 20/12/2005 holdlng that ths election <tf the petitroners as ^^ (^ of SEGRMU on 26/040004 vi^ill^alarri thatthefiret respondentisthe lawfUHy eteeted General Secretary of the SECRMU and it entnisted the management and affairs of SECRMU to himand directed hlm to conduct fresh elecfion to electoffice bearers ofSECRMU. (5) I have heard Shri P. Dhwaker, leamed SCTKT Gounsel forthe petiUoners.Shri Man!ndraShnvasfava,leamedSenior©ouriself6r1ftefirst respondent, Shri Amit Chaudhary, leamed Standing Counsel for the resDondents/Raihvay and Shri Yashwant Singh, teamed Govt. Advocate terthe State of Chhattisgarh, on 04/01QQ06,02^20006 and03n2/2a)6. (65 Shri P.Dhiralcer, leamed Senior Counsel appearing fo^^^ petittoners advanced several argumente, technical and substantial. He contendedttiatoriginatlythe applicaUon underSection28-J oftheActwas filed inthenameof Sou^ EastCentral Rajlway Men^ Union, irotm the name of the first respondeht and as such the applicaUon flled uncter Section 28-J of the Act should haveteen dismissecl in fenm& Me contended that prescribed Court fee of Rs.10/- was not paid 6n the applicationfiledunclerSection28-JoftheActand,theretore,onW^count also Iha application should havegiaieen dismi^ecl. It ws®filBtier CQntended byShri P. DhTOker^t(latj|lc^»c»^Ufi^copy<^ union vwsftled atpr^»vi'rlS|^ga|il!cStic^l^un^ '^L^'!iiMM -n wssss •ssssss ^ ^ m^, ^, though it Was mandatory in terms of^^^ 32 of the IWadhya PradeshTrad&Uni^F^yl^nS, 1961 ^short''l^ula^s'^. Itwas also contended that^the appticatton fited under Section 28-J 6f ttie Act by the first respondent was not ih Fortn-Q. It was contended that the Industrial Court has passed the impugned award labouring under an impmsslon ttiat ffi& petitionere did not ffle reply, whereas the petitioners ,tiad filed parawi&e replytoefore the Industrial Gourt after serving a eopy of the same on the resppndents 1 and 2. tt was contended l^ Shri P. Diwaker that uhcler SscUori 28s) of the Act tte Indushial Court has no jurisdietion to decide the validity ofthe election held on 26/04Q004and, therefore, it has eieceeded its jurisdfction. tt vras conlended by Shri Dhroker ^atttie Industrial Court havit^ rightty hsld thatthe term^^^^^ elecUon ofthelirstrespondiBnthadexpired.itoughtnotto havepermitted the first respondentto manag®cash and other properties oftheunton.tt was also contended by himftatincBrectingthefirstrespQndsnttQconduct etecUon,the Industrial Gourtexceeded Its jurisdicBoriunderSestio^ of the Act. It was also contended that tlie r^arks made^^^^^ second respondent in para 19 ofWe award are totelly unwarranted and unjustified. tt was also contend^a by Shri P. Diwaker that in Uie etecBon heldon 26/04/2004, tiventypersonswereelectedascentratQfflce bMrers ofthe union, but, jn theapplication ffled bythefiret respondent befdre the Indusfaial Court uhder Section 28-J of the tet, only bin> persons i.e. tte peh'tjoneis were impleaded as party - respondents, but, the Industrial Court has held that th& elwtton of all ofRce bearers as iltegat and, therefore, onthatcountalsotheirnpuaf^^^E^ mlaw. liwas !»irr^out^^pi^|i^srj|ainii^^^ fited •appli(^onj:in-;^,w||g?j^||^|||||^g|i|8^^tt|^|^ ^^^licaUon;{in]!jfird||||||^i|J^S^BSMiBIIISlilslSII^^ ^[i^aBiii^ggaijjfigiji.nSMjgibasjBiai^niSaaiusus..^ WSiSSHSSSVBSS-s'ss£SS!S^^ VSiSSsSfSiSSSUS 'll&fiSKSSiiSBIB ^ ." ii;:.[i"< .&' :.- ''SS¥^Pi?S^ '^..:^s^ •jtSSfS s?@^s !;SiS! 8 ^ It was la^ contencled by^^^^^^^ ff:W1SSS!: respondent is not a^member ofWe SECRMU and,^^ irK<OT)petenttamaii^ntheapplic^onunderSeett<m28^^^^ thciugh suph a Dl^ was raised m p^c^ere'eoUnsefcbeferethelrKlusWaieoyrt.theln^ considerAtesam^insthe avrard. S 4 (7) Shrt^anindraShriwKtava,learn^^ Sfi^ respondenf, pwtw^, wtiile su^ lndUstrialCourt^utdcpi^dthat^hoyghw T^|ardtetheele^ bn 11/07SOCe,^there are two vereionsgone by ttie petitjooere and other by thefirst respcmdsnt, tte IndustrialCourt has rightlyacceptedthe^^^v^ ^^e flrst respbndent ^ coTrecrt recordlng factual^^^to ^^thatfactualflrKlingcoutdn<^beeQndenihed^perwrse^to leaa! evktenee. It wa&ftighliShtedtty^iKri Manindra Shriwistava ttiateveh assuming-that another view^Ssal^ possibte^ the las^ i'eMclence and cirtMmsiani^of^iaasasea eventhen, (t is noffor ttilsS<%iurt rl& t^set (he viev^taken by^ ttregpj|stnal^^ appTeciaU6n;:^|tl'le^ evidencS on reeord; Shri Marii^i(»Shrjvas^^ parameters and lirhitaticms ofludigial j'evtew M^ctuatfindings recortleEl by the Industrial Tribunals. Shri ManiWra Shri\rastava^wreuld nextcentend that the peffloners awestopped byiaheir conauctfrom?^^ ffiiere was no electiori 6n 11/07/2002. Accord!n& to Shri Maninyi^ Shnwistaya, Annexure-F'/IO^'obtained^n 18/08/2004 is a regishation cerfflcateddated 21/110002 endosingalistofoffi<^^are^ 11/07/2002 and aS ^ ffliat list peTOCM^ 1 and^Z^ ;VVpr!dhg:Prssklent.ahdA,Depu)^^Qen'^::.^§CT^Wi firsfresp<:mctentas<3enei^Sec|gtsagg6<^6i]§g©^ .-SIKS'^^ ^^m.^ ^.r^l ^^S'S.t^ Ss'^f^ ^^ WSSSS^m^ WSsiSS^ 's^"^^ifi& 1 1: 1 1 \ 1 :•[• '[- 1 11 8BH8S W VtsSffSS'WW^'^:' %Kf%tsi^i'rs'^ ^pe^upino^^sM^r^yoBWsy JD uinpuejouisui si|i uo AWP duiB^^ BuiAi^ 'Mo^sift s^^^ Bu!^ew-e|nas4iAqpeyio8dstaA^S!uo!ip3||ddBetttuopiBdSiqot8at aifl }BIB ino tuiod p|n6 eAB^eAuys "MS 'W slfl JO ('-82 yoipas •ispun peiy uojteaitddesiB uo -/ot'sy ^? ^»npdtueis Aed iou pip tuspuodssj tsjy eiftlBtfl uOBuaiuoa aift Guiissw •uie:)!|dde-<ljed )sjy sift suueasqj|3suijt| lyspuodsaj ^iu sift pue paispjo SB u<»BE3!|dde teifl pue 900S/tl./£Z u6 sn^ S^ea aift Buipusuie J<y u6!ie3j(dde UB p8|tf tuspuodsaj laju 8qt'uo!^!|ddB84lBuuuJ8yeieiBwo»uiodp|hlMkeAe}seAui<sejpu!UBW MMS '^qWi^'BU ^" SE u '^puodssj ^y aift j6 siueu siff ui }ou 'uojun s,usnAe/Bytea teflusotseg iflnogsiBito siueu s^ui A|)ei(juj p9|y SB py aifl r-8S uott3a9 jepunupt^oiiddesiB aoujs ]EI|} uo!ius}u03 SIB BUtissn "MBnojift ye uoiun SIBp jsqiuStu sift ussq seii 8i< teitt psildi.ui i|3nui AISA si u 'ossi i!j| 'pue ninao39 p uojtEuujoi jaye pue sjo^Sq uoiun 8pB4 siffjo j&iesq soiyo sift SB luspuodsaj isiy eittAipeBjuipe leift pu3}uo3 p|noM BAe}seAui(s BJPUIUGW uilS 'nwaoas sWto Jsqiusiu e y»u st wspuodsaj tsitf 8W Wiji aisuojusd sifl i&t fssunco p&ujesi jo yony^uoa siB Busssin 'uo^ritts sift^asBetueApe snpun ®|e»lou pinoys si8yo{ffl8d 8ift pue soiisnr^o einjieji ou si 8jsitt*ai0!(a.lsi^-puesuoiius)uo3 ssoqi ||B pajspisuoo seq ynoo |eu}snpu| sift pue prtoo jeuisnpui sift aK^sq S.ieuojtgsd sift jo( issunoa psiuee) stB Aq p8|yfcSiyauinBje uanuw 8iftUjp8S!ejos|eaiaMA|d&iat|iujsjauoji!tsd8iBAqp3S!ejsuo!peh]osiB ||B 'uo!l!B3!|dde eifl (4 Afdsj ps|ii ipu SAeii aieuogjtsd StftlBifl p3AJssqoset| Anus}jsApBU! pnog lejjisnpui sift yBnotme ^nft py^uoo pinom eA^seAiiqs BipUiuen uys 'Buipasaojd |e69| Aue u| eures siB jo sssutoslioa ;StB9Bys||Bij3^4tp!p jou eujiijoiuiodAueietsjtpiessiftpssoddojSASU BB8ilS8iiB8,^^r'&'.:: ^SSSVKSSSwS& S^^^^^SSi^Sf®^£ 10 (8) Bv i^ of reply, Shri P. Diwaker leamed SenkM' Counsel appeanng fte p^titionere would cOntend that Annexure-P/10 is Form-B and not Fonn-E ^ntf list <tf ^ <^ incorporated in Annexure-P/10 is ^ly^li^ofoffiG6bea^ eleeted,raember& tt^iras contended that there was absolutely no scope ;for condueting5islgetion on 1110712002 to eled offlce bearers of SEeRMU, because.by UiiatSme tHe^ffiew unton was not at att formed, and admittedly theRaih^Boai^cjn^^r^rganisatkm^^^ wasalso{}Olr^iout^ShniB#Diw|l(eT^atac^ Sine, inaH o ersi)fzon^8|e<^ionsw^Me|donlys^f6mK^ newzones iripurSuam^trf^^ctk^ 08®8/2002and,therefore, ttle claim put forth by the first respondeiitffiat therewaselectionMoffiCebearerson 11^)7/2002 ish^hl^ totatlyfalse. (9) Having heard leamed counsel for the parUes, the fEjtresUon forcoreicterationiswhettierthepetffionerehavemacleoutanygigyndto interfere with the impugned award of the industrial Court. tn the flrst place, it isappropriate to disoose of certain technical grounds, if I maYsay so, hwei-technical grounds, uiged by Shri P. Dhwaker. The techriical aiguments advanced by Shri Dhwaker against the maintalnability of UTe apptication filed by the flrst responderrt under Swtion 28-J of fte Act relate to e factthat origfnallythe appllcationwas filed inthe nameofltie South East Gentral Railway Meri's Unionand notinthe nameofthefiRt respondent; that no Court fee was paid on ttie appticatibn; Uiat no <»r1jfied copy ofthe (^stituti^^^ applieaUoB flled un<i(S|KSe<?tion^28^^ the ^ ^ i'-:!%^^ 1:?^!atic^32iof^gSgj|!|8ons;.andW^^a|^lt^^ _li )iau 11 ^ t respondent under Section 28-J of the Act was not in RWm Q. Speaking about ihe disputes goyemed by ttie procedure laid down in the Gode of Civit Procedure, ft is stated that the Cocte of Chril Procedure is ynfailing resource fer an unscruputous Indian litigant to stall the proceedlngs or to d^er the ctecisKin-malcing to the peril of hisoppCTient. 1 do not think tfiat Ihat is the •exclusive reserve of the litlgations which arise out fte applicationrofflle provislonsofthe Code OfCh/il Procedure; qyite often, suchsimilarityvrasfoundinwritproceedings too. In the flrst place, it is needl^s to state that the above four contenttons raised by Shri P. Diwakei are undeniably hyper-technteaf grounds ancf the Court at this distanceoftime.WouldbetotallyunjusUfiedtorejecttteappllcaUonfiled by the first respondent under SectiQn 28-J of the Act on those groynds eyenassuming'thattti<reeflroundsaremadeout.Moreover,thereisnQ substance in the first and second contention, because, although initlally the appljcation under Seetion 28-<J(rf the Act was fited in the name of the South East Csntral Railway Men's Unlon, subsequsnUy, Ihe first respondent made an applicaUon on 23/11/2005 andamencledthecause titteand he himsetfbecametheappficant. Secohdly,1heCourtfeetobe paid on the applicatton filed under Section 28-J ofttie Act is not yet specified by e Rute-makihg Authority. Inthatviewoftte mattBT, payirig any Court fee on the memorandum OT the appticatiQn would npt artse. Furthermore.theapplicationfiledbythefirstrespondentunderSectionZS- J oftheAct,in substelnce, cpntaihs all the detailsand particulare whichare required to be stated fn Form-Q prescribed form. Faihire t6 file eerUfled copyoftheconstitutibnofWeUrifonalOt^v^theapplicaUon.lnriowayi affected the decjslor^maldr^orresultedanypr^tKllGe^^^t^ Moreover.thepeti^ersdidii^tilnecttoft the Gonstitution crf ttte Ltni<®.P^ ].'Mi,lii;?a|i; aaiHi 12 substentiat flrounds and not on technlcal tortures. In that view of the matter.ithe above grounds uiged by Shri P. Diwaker dkl not appeal tp ms npraceeptable to me. (10} "niis tekes me to thesubstance offte matter. As rightly stated by Shri Mariindra Shrivasteva, leamed Senior Counsef for responderrt No.1,4hat since there are two versions with resard to the etections hekl on pras002 and since ttie Industnal Court has accepted the version o( ttie firet Wspondent as correct and since the findings reeorded by Uie Industriat^Coyrt to accept the version of the first respondent are tesed on ^ndence, if frue, this Court as an appelterte Courtcannot reappreciatethe evKtenceand rec^fihdihgsdBfe thefindingsre<wdedbythelndustrtel<^urt^l^thatisnottHe^ povrerofthisGourtunderArticle226oftheGonstltuttOnGftndia.ltistrue thatthe scope ofjudiciaf reviewin reviewing findings offact, under Arttete 226 of the Constifartion, is very much limitecf and circumscribed by authoritative judicial pronouneements. Uhless, in a given case, the Court flnds that the flndihgs recorded l>y an authority, statutory or otherwlse, is tesed on 'no ewdence', Beannot reaopreciate the evfdence ted before the authority and cdme to a conclusion whteh is different from fte one arrived at by tiie authority orthe Tribunal, as if the High Court is an appellate Court orauUlority over the decision taken by the authority or the Tribunal. The Hgh Courtshatl notordinarilyeiiteTintottiedisputedquestionsoffaet like anappsllate Court. The High Gourtcannot sit as Court of appeal over the findings offeKrt record^ by a competent Inferior Tribunal. It is also ^ll settled that the findings on ft^ canrrot ^ around that the evidene®pn whict) it was based wasywt satisfaetoiy oc sufflcjent. T^e ont^nqufry^ic^We^HighCoyrtcan^^^m M Sl^^^ ii» ?^l'^&fc^©^^I>^ {^^%^'^-'''^^A''^.;c:^l^^^^^^;-^^•^ r^i^;,'l:^ ^ '^^S^^-i?^^?U/M ^•:^ r-^.,'..^,^ &!sfi%iS3KK; BfiSSBSS ^sS^K^. KSSSsSX BSWK ^^^^^..•^j ^^s^^^ WSKf BiSSBjis BUB'K ^<^^^S^11 ^^B^^S'^:^ '^Wi'^y^^HK.w^: '^^W;^ iSSM .•SB.KKSS' •SV9-mtSM^ iffiiSl:^K^ •|^|%|^tl:lj ai'\:-,z;-•:,-•:'.'• l^i^:l;:;ls:ti iu; .S rl >-•;'' 3.:':8»S.'i 6^.'.^"<B s:.^': .,S;:'5.,,fi i^l.'l-:%:ll ^ ''.§! S:' -S .e i •° S & S (O ® .'£SK9^K!Sj'?;i??'MiS^ca?^ :;KK>:S%?'4*B— fiia-aswas '^K'WS'SsSiSS .^^.'SKMSSNN .^K-n&^:^.^^^^^ .';?.?''.^'°.?^ss ^itllli" tt>s •^K^t^ "^^~^t<"^^ [^wBty^ o <:;%%•?-' •,.^^_.-0- ^.•'vt'W'WV,. "?"T. 11111 Biiatg.K .<s« y <C' (C" l^- O&' li^il;' iiK nl: :t":.^'".: ii'";:;';'^; IIJIi 14 Thus, it is qinte dear^^ ffie judidal r^ adjudiGation of^e case on raerBs as ah appdtat®^^ Gburt, in th&pi^edings undsrArticls 226 of^ Con^t^ act 3SK^ aPP^I^ authoifty', but, exsrcises^^^^w review]to cortectsrrore crflaw or proc^ural^^ injusdee oryiolatioh of principles of natural jusGce, The Migh Gourt cannot 3% !^ppreciateth^^idence, the^ingsofft^^ordedby^Tribunalorttieauthority. jSS (11) In the light^^ above principt^ govemingthe DOV^^^^^^^ judicral review,letnteproeeedtocQnsiderthfr^^raent^^ Shrivastava,sleamed Senigr CoUnsel appearina for the flrst respondent. ;|||g BefQr8doinattiat,itneedstebenoUcedWataprinTO^ 1h!sraseastOwhethertheels(^ohtoetect<^ceBearersirftheSE(%MH^^S could have been held at all 6n 11/07/2002 tntermsoflaw:eonsicleraticih ^thisquestfon, at ethreshold, accordingfo me, is^ q^ amvs at a just clecision. Accrirding to Ule first respQiident, fliie Sajlway Authprities vhie^ Annexur^R/22 dafed 28/0^^ direc^th^^^R^ MetfsFedef^rito^fermsepai^^rtewtradeynk^ zones and aecordingly they Keld an etection on 11/07/2002 fer SECRMU. This asserfion of the fiN respondent was sertousty conteSted and disputedlsythepetitione^^/centerKiinathat^^ reotganisationoftheunion^onlyon 08/08/2002 and^^^t^ receh^ in BHasinir ^e lonly^ <m 11®8/2002a^ electjon to eled oftee bgarere^ltM^SEtSRMU teefore 11/08SQ@8!iCoytd! hot arise, ^here is riQ^nBei|!i|y;;t)Sh^ ^^^^ 'SSH :-^iS^SI '^^":,;';'''yecJsi6n^was/teken^'ersS^n'iB|^^ l~~~TO:"SWJSK%S~~'"%roW~%IRHWBS^B :;^'''^.,!ttme.i^ued::direG^^iri^ !il •:; il 1 i .;i \ lil !lll !li s ! i i::, •i. !;u 15 • -K consequent ypon creation of riew zones. It was fairty conceded by Shri f":: ".. ••" '.•.-•••'•'::'•.••• '•'••.' '• • •:••"-"::•.. :.".-' '•• :-. •'•..,• "'... Manindra Shrhrastava, teamed Senior Counsel, that after the formation of SECRMU.an election totheSECRMU had to bs held in confonnitywith the relwanfrprovisions <rf ttie Act, such as, provisions of Sectlon 5 which d^ls wfth making of application for registration, SecUon 8 which deals with the provisfonsto be contained in the rules of ttie Trade Uraon, Section Swhichdealswith the registration ofthe Trade Un!onand Section 9 Mvhich deals with the issuancs of Qertificate of Regis^Ubn etc. There is absolutely no material placed before the Industrial Court or b^ore ftis Gourttoshowthatbefbre 11/07/2002 SECRK4U was formed; an applfeatjon was made foc registering the same uncter Sectton 5 of the Act ortoshCTwthatflieexecuthre ofthe proposed ttade unlonwas constituted in accordance with ttie provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereof orcomplying With ttie othsr mandatQry provisionsoT Section SirftheAct. The fermidabte above bbiection raised by the petitioners herein was summarily rejected by the Industriaf.Court, if 1 may say so, by misconstruingArmexure^^Odated 21/11/2(X)2,acerfifedcopyOfwhich was obtained only on 18/08/2004, asa Certificate of Registration issued by the Registrar ofthe TradeUnions iinder Seetion 9 ofthe Act in Form-E, whereas the evidence on record woukl disclose that Annsuxre-FyiQ was issued in Rarm-B and that is not a certificatipn ofregistration envisaged uncler Sectiori 9 of the Act. The Iridustrial Court^reating Ann©(ure-P/10 as certtfkate ofregi^atiQn mf^mi-E issued underSeetion^^S^^^ and on the ground that that certificate was not chalfenged by the wrjt '•*.'••.'"'.' • '. :•" •• '•'• •• '.:• . '• :'•••.• ...:. .'.' • ••.. '..'.• • " •••••;'.•• . •. • • ••::•••• '• • .'. .:.... petitioners, hetd that the arguhwnt advancecl by ttie petitlpnere was fallactous and without any substance. Th6 cireumstances brouaM in evidence would go to showttiaf wrtiat wis done on 1 •tfflT/2002 by^ertain members / office bearers (rfiBilasour Divisjon was not eleetlon toeleetffigg WfSSi 16 < ^ jl?: ofRcebearersofthethennon.^xiStingSECRMUbutenlisfmentofcertain membere as ofnce bearers ctf the propos^ come. Apart from the faet that as on 1W7/2Q02 SECR^4U vras not formed, the first respondent himself^has admitted on oath that on 11/07S002 tte elections vrere held for; slecting only PresKtent and General Secretaryof the SEeRMU and the rest ofthe aforesaid ofRee bearers were etected in a subS&auerrt^lecBo^heidat Ifelkataona subsequentdate. This is highly incredible and eannpt 1»aeceptea. This admission flself woukt d^troy the credibilHy of tt'ie^assertion ofthe flret respondent that election was held on 11/07/2002 atBilaspur, berause,the constitutionof th®unionvwuM not permit holding of elections in pjecemeat. Apart from the other attending circum^ances which go to show tiWt before 11A)7Q(X32 SECRMU vras not in existence, the other wsighty circumstancewhieh 1s againstthefirstrespondent^assertionisthatoneSX.Faizuddin)^ claimedtohaveattiendedthemeetingon 11/070002 was.infactiORdi.ity arKJ he wasrKrtgranted teave noFr^eved^^^^^ atferKl etoction affeged t6 h^ hietd^^ er^ence Inttieassertion ^We petittonere thato^ SECRMUwas^formedarKl ho meeting 6fW said untonw^ 11/07/2002 to eledoffk»bearersofthesajduril6nandwhatwash8tel6n 11/07/2002 was only a formal fl'leeting of the Divisionat Executtwi Committee ofthe members oftthe Bjlas{>ur Division of the SERMU and in the said meeting all^iose who intencled to go with the proposed new union, namely, SECRMU, preparedUie Itstofproposedofficebearer'sKWtt) a viewtogetBng ths registrati^n ofthe new unjon donsOT^ the eleetions hsld subseciuenttheretotQsleaof^bearers^^ uniohon a regularbasis. TheHsfc^^cebMrers^th&propos^ wias »ntto the seccmd TSsponSents—g^istrar^^racl&U ISBBBIISIBi tSSSw ^d 'JSScVfsiS^KifVsS i )>•>'!?°;.—•; ^ 17 • 1\ ^ €: that basis tte second resoondent has issued Annexure-R/10 dated! 21/11V2002.' As alteady pointed out supra, Annexure-P/10 is not a csriificate ofregistration !ssu«lunder Section 9 oftteAdiriForm-E.the resuttant positlon is that in law, stection to elect office Vearers of the SECRMU could not be hekl on 11/07/20B, because, by that Ume SECRMU vras not formed at aH, Holding an etecUon to etect office bearere of a non-existina trade union is not envisaged under the provisionsoftte^orthemlesframedthereunderorthemteorl^^ oftheSECRMU.IfindpertfersityintheT^ascningofthelndystrialGourti and consequently, it has reachal a wrong conclusion. In 1act, thfr Industrial Court did not apply its mind to the basic quesUon whether the election to elect ofHce bearers of the SECRMU could have been conductedatanintermsoflawon 11/07/2002 inthewayexpecteetofit. (12) In view of fts above opinion, there is no need for the Court te deal with severalcontentious issues brought before theCourt such as Ihat whether the participatidn of the pedtioners in the meeting held on 11®7ffi<X}2and ttieir subseqiient conduct wouM disentftle them to the relief as contended by Shn Manindra Shrivastava. Be that as itmay, the evidence placed beforefte Inclustrial Courtas well as betore ttiis Court would satisfactorily proye that after ths Raihyay Board ordered ^ . • . . • • • • . •' . . ' • ' •' reorganisationofunionson 08/08/2002 SECRMUvras formed and came into existence and had startwl functfoning only w.eA 01/07SO ( and electiohs were hekl on 26/04/2004 toelect the office bearers of the new union. As directed by this Gourt in Writ Pefition No.1%3 of 2004, the; second respondent—RegistrarofTraKle Unions having applied (ns mind tssuedcertificateofregistrationinForm-EunderSedron9offfieiAet. :HI): ;'^.1;! .SS6SI 18 ^' • !]:lil!; II: !!ti (13) I also find eonsklerable force in the submission of^Shri Diwater thatthere is absolutely no satisfactory evidence or materialSSIecl^ beforet!relridustria|CourtandthisCQurttdshowthatthefirstres(»ffi£|ent wasa memberofSECRMU. Shri MahihdraShri'rasta\Ri?leam6(l^couR^! for thefirst fBspondent underetanclably having regard to tlte faGtlhatltiere arenomatsrialstoshowthatafterthsformationoftheSEeRMU.ttieSirst respondentbecamememberoflhatunionwouldharponthefactttiatif the first respcmdent was nota membsr, he could not ha<re held the post of ofRce bearer of the union before and after 11/07/2002 and ttiat Bie very lact thatthe first respondent had been office bearer ofthe union vyoutd ImplythathelsamemberofSECRMU.Thisisasfrangesubmissionand not accepteble to me. Thelactthat in the listofproposed office beareraof ttie new union prepared on 11-07-2(XE, ttiefiret respondent wa&sliawrrte be General Secretary ofttie proposed Union is not in disput& and thatAhe first respondentby virtueof thatdecision continuedtofunctionasGeneral Secretary of the propossd new union, that fact ilseff wtthout anytliing further, could notlead to an inference thatthfrfiret respondent yras a member ofthe SECRMU. There is a well-laid and etaborate procedure in the rules and bylaws of the union governlr^ how^^an employee can become a member ofthe unlon. Thereis no iota ofwideneetoshovfc^at thefiret respondentisa memberof SECRMU. Ifthefirstrespondenflynot a member of SECRMUanclif he sira&notelectedas an offieetoeareroftKe saidunfon after its formatlon, he could not maintaintheapplicafion imder Section 28-J oftheAGt. Sub-Section(1) ofSection20-J o^the ^t reSKls as fbllows: - "28J-HsputeastoofncerofregjsteredTradeUnion- (1) Ifthereisariydisputeastowhpisthelawfuloffk^rf^^^^ registered Trade Unlon, any person daimingtebe an suc^ -^ :'".? 'SS^^^MMsl NMMBI ^'>^;'&^^S^E '^ ^f£'!^SSMM^: s^ 19 w4i €. an officer or the Registar may Tete the dispute to tndustr|a|£ourtin!suchiriannerandonpa^nentofsuchfe& not exceeding ten rupeesas mavbeprescribed. " In tttjs case, tiTere is no evidence to show that after ffie ft>rmaUon | SEeRMU, the flrst rMppndent became a member and/or cohtested the eleetion to postofiany office bearer of the union. tfthatisso,in terms of syb-Section (1) of SwtKSn 28-J of the Act, he cannot mainteiin the appljcation. (14) FurUiermpiFe, in the elsction held on 26/04/2004, asmany as | 20pers6nsweree|ededasofficebearersoftheSECRMU,bUt,thefirst respondsnt did not implead all of them exc^yt the petitioners, as party- respondents to the application filed by him before the Industrial Gourt ?i% under SeCSon 28-J of the Act. When that is the position, Uie Industrial Courtquitecurioustywittioutdirectinatfieflrstrespondenttoimpeladth® left-oyt office bearersas party—respondentStotheapplicaUonorwithout | itsetfimpteadingthemasparty—respondentehas held thatthe elecBons | heldon 26-04-2004 wasiltegalnot onlywith regardtothe election (rfthe petitionere, but,aisowth l^ardtothew^eelection.^^ angle, itshciuU be held thatttie onter made by tte IrKiusWal Court is m j . utterviolattonoflheprinciplesofnaturaljusttee.lttsneedtesstostatottiat the impugne^ award Kas e^hgujshed the rights ofthose G^ whoare nQt^rtiestofteapplieatt6n,ttattoo,wittiouthearing<heniR (15) 1-ooklng from any anflle, the im^ !ndustrialCourtcannotbesusfained.Sufflcientandviteightygroundsare||| madeouttQintetferewtththe^me.lnthatviewfrf^t^ma^^l^ag^sSEXS writ'Detttion.and.(^ash,;the^i(npugped|E^rit;:cB^.|^i%