AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.G. Ketkar, J.—Heard Mr. J.P. Cama, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Shailesh Naidu, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 and Mr. K.M. Naik, learned Senior Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 at length.
Rule. The learned Counsel for the respective respondents waive service. By consent of the parties. Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final hearing.
By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the judgment and order dated 10.1.2013 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Mumbai (for short, ''Tribunal'')/below Exhibits-UA-3 and U-14 in Complaint (ULP) No. 298 of 2012. By that order, the Tribunal allowed the Review Application Exhibit U-14 filed by the first respondent-The Indian Hotel Company Employees'' Union (for short, ''Union'') and set aside the earlier order dated 13.8.2012 passed by the Tribunal below Exh.-UA-3 filed by the petitioners. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the filing of the present writ petition, briefly stated, are as under.
The Union instituted Complaint (ULP) No. 298/2012 before the Tribunal on or about 9.7.2012 u/s 28(1) read with Items 3 and 5 of Schedule II and Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short, ''Act of 1971''). Pending the complaint, the Union filed application for interim relief u/s 30(2) of the Act of 1971. Respondent No. 1-The Indian Hotel Company Ltd. (for short, ''Company'') filed affidavit in reply of Shri Hemant A. Shinde, General Manager, H.R. Corporate dated 13.7.2012 opposing the interim relief application. By the judgment and order dated 13.7.2012, the Tribunal partly allowed the application and restrained the company from holding any negotiations with any individual, group of individuals or outsiders etc from discussing, negotiating with them on the issue of wage rise. The company was further restrained from holding any negotiations in respect of the wage rise or any settlement for that matter for the said purpose with the persons who are claiming to be duly elected office bearers of the recognized Union in the meeting allegedly held on 11.7.2012. The said order was to remain in force for a period of two months from the date of the order, i.e. 13.7.2012. The Tribunal also expected that in the meanwhile, the rival parties will resolve their dispute amicably among other directions.
The petitioners herein claiming to be accredited representatives and members of the Union and employed with the company (herein after referred to as the ''Accredited Representatives'') made application at Exhibit-UA-3 on 20.7.2012 to implead them as party in the said complaint. The Accredited Representatives also on the same day, i.e. 20.7.2012, made application to the Registrar of the Trade Union, State of Maharashtra, Mumbai u/s 28 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (for short, ''Act of 1926'') read with Form ''K'' for verification of the authenticity of the executive committee of the Union in terms of Annexure-1 dated 18.7.2012 to the said application.
The Union resisted the application at Exhibit UA-3 made by the Accredited Representatives by filing reply dated 13.8.2012, contending that in the Annual General Meeting held on 5.4.2012, 16 members of the Union were duly elected as elected representatives (for short, these members shall be referred to as ''Elected Representatives''). It was disputed that election of the Union was held on 11.7.2012 wherein the Accredited Representatives were elected. By judgment and order dated 13.8.2012 the Tribunal allowed that application and directed the Union to amend the complaint and add the Accredited Representatives as respondents within a period of 2 weeks from the date of the order.
Aggrieved by that order, the Union instituted Writ Petition No. 8839 of 2012 in this Court. After hearing both sides, by the judgment and order dated 24.9.2012 the petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge in limine. The Union challenged that order by filing Letters Patent Appeal No. 238 of 2012. During the course of hearing of L.P.A., on behalf of the Union, the order dated 10.10.2012 passed by the Deputy Registrar was produced. It was contended that the said order negates the stand of the Accredited Representatives as a result whereof their claim that they are duly elected representatives of the Union, has been rejected. On the other hand, on behalf of the Accredited Representatives it'' was submitted that the interpretation put by the Union to the order dated 10.10.2012 is incorrect. The Deputy Registrar merely recorded that if Accredited Representatives have been already elected, no other formality is required to be done.
By order dated 27.11.2012 the Division Bench of this Court disposed of the Letters Patent Appeal and gave liberty to the Union to approach the Tribunal by way of Review of the order dated 13.8.2012 in the light of the subsequent event. It was observed that if the stand taken by the Union is correct and accepted by the Tribunal, it would necessarily follow that the ground on which the impugned order was passed by the Tribunal on 13.8.2012 will be non-existing, particularly keeping in mind the order passed by the Deputy Registrar dated 10.10.2012 and the fact that the same has not been challenged by the Accredited Representatives. The Division Bench made it clear that it will be open to the Tribunal to consider arguments of the Accredited Representatives that their application for impleadment was allowed by the Tribunal on other grounds and not limited to the fact that they claimed to be elected representatives of the Union. It was also made clear that in case the Union fails to convince the Tribunal in review petition it will be open to the Union to agitate all questions to be decided by the Tribunal in the review petition as also the grounds made in the appropriate proceedings, it will be considered on its own merits in accordance with law.
In pursuance of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 27.11.2012, the Union took out application for Review at Exhibit U-14 on 4.12.2012 for review of the order dated 13.8.2012 thereby allowing application Exhibit UA-3 made by the Accredited Representatives. The said application was resisted by the Accredited Representatives by filing reply dated 4.1.2013. By the impugned order dated 10-1.2013, as noted earlier, the Tribunal allowed Review Application Exh. U-14 and set aside the order dated 13.8.2012 passed below Exh. UA-3 filed by the Accredited Representatives. It is against this order, the Accredited Representatives have instituted the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
In support of this petition, Mr. Cama strenuously contended that the dispute is about the office bearers of the Union. On one hand the Elected Representatives contend that they have been duly elected in the Annual General Meeting held on 5.4.2012 and on the other the Accredited Representatives contend that in the Special General Body meeting held on 30.6.2012, vote of no confidence was passed against the Elected Representatives and it was decided to hold fresh election. Dr. A.D. Patil, retired Deputy Labour Commissioner was appointed as Returning Officer. On 11.7.2012 the meeting was convened for holding the election and actually in the meeting held on 1.9.2012 the Accredited Representatives have been duly elected. Mr. Cama invited my attention to:
(i) Complaint (ULP) 298/2012 instituted by the Union and in particular paragraphs 3(c), prayer clauses (d),(e), (f), (h);
(ii) Application for interim relief u/s 30(2) of the Act of 1971 and in particular paragraphs 2(b) and prayers (a), (b) of that application.
(iii) Affidavit of Shri Hemant A. Shinde dated 13.7.2012 and in particular paragraphs (e),(f) and (g);
(iv) Application at Exhibit UA-3 made by the Accredited Representatives on 20.7.2012;
(v) Application dated 20.7.2012 u/s 28 of the Act of 1926 and Annexure-1 dated 18.7.2012 in form No. ''K'';
(vi) Reply dated 13.8.2012 filed by the Union resisting the application Exh. UA-3 made by the Accredited Representatives;
(vii) Order dated 13.8.2012 passed by the Tribunal allowing the application Exh. UA-3;
(viii) Order dated 3.9.2012 passed by the Tribunal below Exhibit-U-1 rejecting the prayer for extending the interim order dated 13.7.2012 which was to remain in force for a period of two months from the date of that order;
(ix) The judgment and order dated 24.9.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 8839 of 2012;
(x) The order dated 20.10.2012 passed by the Dy. Registrar, on the application dated 20.7.2012 made by the Accredited Representatives;
(xi) The order dated 27.11.2012 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 238 of 2012.;
(xii) The impugned order dated 10.1.2013 and in particular paragraphs 11 and 12 thereof.
Mr. Cama submitted that on 21.3.2012 the Union had issued notice convening General Body meeting on 5.4.2012. In the Agenda of that notice no subject as regards holding yearly election was mentioned. He submitted that hardly few workmen attended the Annual General Meeting held on 5.4.2012. In pursuance of the requisition dated 28.5.2012 the meeting was held on 11.7.2012 and the Accredited Representatives (18) were elected unopposed and unanimously. The Accredited Representatives were elected by following democratic process and in accordance with the constitution of Union comprising of more than 500 workmen as against of total voters of 695 or so. It is, therefore, absolutely necessary to implead Accredited Representatives in the complaint filed by the Union. He submitted that the Accredited Representatives are vitally interested in the outcome of the complaint and they are vitally affected. In other words, he submitted that the Accredited Representatives are necessary party in the complaint. In any case they are proper party for adjudication of controversy between the parties in the complaint. He submitted that by prayer clauses (d), (e), (f), (h) in the complaint, the Union is praying for injunction restraining the company from encouraging the members who are not allowing the elected office bearers of the Union to discuss, negotiate or to visit the place of employees and to conduct negotiations with them (prayer (d)); for direction against the company to discuss, negotiate and settle all issues including the issue of wage rise with the legally elected office bearers of the Union in the Annual General Meeting held on 5.4.2012 (prayer clause (e)), for injunction restraining the company from allowing any individual, group of individuals, outsiders etc from discussing, negotiating on the issue of wage rise, etc with the management (prayer clause (f)); for direction against the company not to allow any employee, individual, group of individuals who is not legally elected office bearers of the Union to conduct any meeting/general meeting of all the employees on 16.7.2012 (prayer (h)). In other words, he submitted that the Elected Representatives through whom the Union has filed the complaint are claiming that they are validly elected representatives of the Union in the meeting held on 5.4.2012. On the other hand. Accredited Representatives are claiming to have been duly elected in the meeting of 11.7.2012 after passing of no confidence against the elected representatives who claim to be elected in the Annual General meeting dated 5.4.2012. He submitted that when the election was to be held on 11.7.2012, the Elected Representatives claiming to be validly elected representatives instituted the complaint on 9.7.2012. He submitted that the Elected Representatives are no longer office bearers of the Union in view of the election of the Accredited Representatives as elected representatives of the Union in the meeting of 11.7.2012. In furtherance of election of the Accredited Representatives in the meeting of 11.7.2012, they have signed settlement with the company on 21.9.2012 and all the employees of the company including the Elected Representatives who have instituted the complaint on behalf of the Union have taken benefits of settlement without demur.
Mr. Cama further submitted that from perusal of the complaint and its prayer clauses as also the prayers in the interim relief application, it is evident that the Industrial Court will have to examine whether the complaint instituted by the Elected Representatives on behalf of the Union is, in fact, filed by duly elected representatives of the Union or not. If the complaint is allowed, the Accredited Representatives would be directly affected. While deciding the complaint, the Tribunal will have to decide necessarily the issue as to whether the Elected Representatives or the Accredited Representatives are validly elected as members of the Managing Committee of the Union. He submitted that the Accredited Representatives are, therefore, necessary party for effectively and completely adjudicating and settling all the questions involved in the complaint.
He submitted that the Elected Representatives are not properly interpreting the order dated 10.10.2012 passed by the Deputy Registrar. He submitted that the Deputy registrar has clearly observed in the order dated 10.10.2012 that the election held in the meeting on 11.7.2012 is in accordance with principles of natural justice and, therefore, there cannot be any dispute as regards past office bearers. He submitted that even though the Deputy registrar has refused to give consent u/s 28(1-A) of the Act of 1926, having regard to the observations made by the Division Bench in the order dated 27.11.2012 and in particular paragraphs 3 and 5 thereof, it is open to the Accredited Representatives to agitate other grounds and not limited to the fact that they claimed to be elected representatives of the Union. He submitted that since the company has also entered into settlement with the Accredited Representatives on 21.9.2012 and the said benefit has been accepted by all the employees including the Elected Representatives without demur, they are necessary party to the complaint. In any case, they are proper party in the complaint and, therefore, the Tribunal committed serious error in rejecting the application. In fact, perusal of the impugned order will show that the Tribunal has not given any reasons for allowing the application.
Mr. Naik, while supporting the arguments of Mr. Cama, submitted that on 21.9.2012, the Union has signed settlement through the Accredited Representatives and the Elected Representatives have taken benefits of the settlement without demur. He submitted that the Accredited Representatives are necessary party in the complaint and, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside.
On the other hand, Mr. Naidu supported the impugned order. He invited my attention to the constitution and the Rules of the Union and in particular clauses 9,13,22 and 23 thereof. He invited my attention to section 28(1-A) of the Act, 1926 read with Regulation 110 of the Industrial Court Regulations, 1975. He also submitted that the Union has instituted the complaint u/s 28(1) and section 30(2) read with Item Nos. 3 and 5 of Schedule-II and Item No. 9 of Schedule IV of the Act. He submitted that Schedule-II lays down unfair labour practices on the part of the employer and Schedule IV deals with general unfair labour practices on the part of the employer. In other words, he submitted that the complaint is instituted alleging unfair labour practices on the part of the employer, viz. respondent No. 1-company herein. He submitted that for investigating unfair labour practices on the part of the employer, the Accredited Representatives who are claiming to be duly elected representatives of the Union are neither necessary nor proper party. He submitted that u/s 20(1) of the Act of 1971 such officers, members of the office staff and members of a recognized union as may be authorized by or under rules made in this behalf by the State Government shall, in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, have a right under clauses (a), (b), and (c), (d) of sub-section (1) thereof. Section 20(2)(b) provides that where there is recognized union for any undertaking, no employee shall be allowed to appear or act or be allowed to be represented in any proceedings under the Central Act, except through the recognized union; and the decision arrived at, or order made, in such proceeding shall be binding on all the employees in such undertaking. Regulation 110 of the Industrial Regulations, 1975 framed u/s 33 of the Act of 1971 lays down that if the Court on hearing the parties before it decides that presence of any party is necessary before the Court, it may by specific order direct such party to be impleaded as a party to the proceeding. In other words, he submitted that only necessary party can be impleaded in the complaint and not a party who claims to be a proper party.
He further submitted that the Accredited Representatives made application dated 20.7.2012 to the Registrar under the Act of 1926 enclosing therewith Annexure-I dated 18.7.2012. In that application, the only grievance was made about election of one Mr. Parvez Saher as member of the Managing Committee. He submitted that the Deputy Registrar, by order dated 10.10.2012 refused to give consent for referring the dispute to the Industrial Court for decision. The said order is not challenged by the Accredited Representatives. In view thereof also, the Accredited Representatives cannot agitate the issue u/s 28(1-A) of the Act of 1926 raising dispute relating to wrongly expulsion of the Elected Representatives.
Mr. Naidu further submitted that on one hand the Accredited Representatives claim that they have been duly elected in the meeting held on 11.7.2012 and on the other they have sent requisition dated 28.5.2012 to the Elected Representatives of the Union for convening Special General Meeting. On the basis of the said requisition, the meeting was convened on 28.6.2012. However, the Accredited Representatives did not attend the said meeting. The Accredited Representatives claimed that despite giving requisition dated 28.5.2012 the Elected Representatives failed to convene the meeting within 21 days in terms of Clause (23) of the Constitution and, therefore, the requisitionists themselves called Special General Meeting and the meeting was accordingly held on 30.6.2012 and no confidence motion was passed against the Managing Committee and the Elected Representatives and the elaborate election process commenced on 11.7.2012. Subsequent to the election process, the Accredited Representatives issued notice dated 16.8.2012 to convene Annual General Body Meeting on 1.9.2012 to elect office bearers and Committee Members from among the elected representatives elected on 11.7.2012. In the said General Body Meeting which was held on 1.9.2012 the elected representatives offered for election and accordingly the new Managing Committee came into existence of the complainant/union of which the Accredited Representatives are the members. He submitted that this is clearly contrary to the provisions of the Constitution.
In rejoinder, Mr. Cama submitted that the only question in the present petition is whether the impugned order dated 10.1.2013 rejecting the application made by the Accredited Representatives at Exh. UA-3, thereby, allowing Review Application at Exh. U-14 filed by the Elected Representatives is sustainable or not. The Elected Representatives cannot enlarge the scope of the controversy in this petition.
I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. I have also perused the material on record. Mr. Cama submitted that on 21.3.2012 notice was issued for convening Annual General Meeting on 5.4.2012. In the Agenda of that meeting, no subject of holding yearly elections was mentioned. Perusal of clause 3 of the Agenda clearly shows that it pertains to holding yearly elections of new office bearers. It is the case of the Accredited Representatives that hardly few workmen attended the Annual General Meeting held on 5.4.2012 and, therefore the requisition dated 28.5.2012 was moved by the Accredited Representatives. It is the case of the Elected Representatives that in pursuance of the requisition dated 28.5.2012, the meeting was convened on 28.6.2012, however, the Accredited Representatives did not attend the said meeting. The Accredited Representatives claimed that despite giving requisition dated 28.5.2012, the Elected Representatives failed to convene the meeting within 21 days in terms of clause 23 of the Constitution and, therefore, the requisitionists themselves called Special General Meeting. The meeting was accordingly held on 30.6.1912 and no confidence motion was passed against the Managing Committee Members and the Elected Representatives. The Managing Committee Members ceased to be the office bearers with effect from 30.6.2012. The elaborate election process commenced on 11.7.2012 and the Accredited Representatives issued notice dated 16.8.2012 for convening Annual General Meeting on 1.9.2012 to elect office bearers and committee members from amongst the elected representatives elected on 11.7.2012. In the said general body meeting the Elected Representatives were offered for election and accordingly the new managing committee came into existence of the complainant union of which the Accredited Representatives are the members.
The question is whether this stand of the Accredited Representatives is valid or not. To consider this aspect, it is imperative to make a brief reference to the Constitution of Union.
Clause 22 reads as under:
There shall be held in the month of April or May an Annual General Meeting of all the members of the Union, to transact the following business:--
(a) To adopt the report of the work done by the Union and the audited statement of accounts.
(b) To elect the office bearers and other members of the Managing Committee for the current year, and
(c) To transact such other business as may be brought forward with the permission of the Chairman.
In terms of clause 22, extracted herein above, Annual General Meeting of all the members of the Union has to be held in the month of April or May to transact, amongst others, the business of election of the office bearers and other members of the Managing Committee for the current year. I have already indicated that the notice dated 21.3.2012 included the subject of holding Annual General Meeting on 5.4.2012 for election of the new office bearers. The election is accordingly held on 5.4.2012 wherein the Elected Representatives were elected. The case made out by the Accredited Representatives is that since the said meeting was attended by very few members, they gave requisition dated 28.5.2012 for convening Special General Meeting. Since the meeting was not convened within 21 days in terms of clause 23 of the Constitution, the Accredited Representatives held meeting on 30.6.2012 and passed no confidence motion. The question is whether the claim made by the Accredited Representatives of passing of no confidence motion against the Elected Representatives is valid and is in accordance with the constitution of the Union. Clauses 13 and 14 of the Constitution deal with Vacancies and Removals. Clauses 13 and 14 read as under:
Should a Vacancy occur among the office bearers or the members of the Managing Committee it shall be filled by the Managing Committed by co-option.
Any office bearers of the Union or a member of its Managing Committee can be removed by the General Meeting of the Members by a three-fourths majority for committing any fraud or having acted against the interests of the Union, provided the office bearer or the member to be removed is given adequate opportunity to explain his conduct.
In the present case, we are not concerned with vacancy occurring among the office bearers or the members of the Managing Committee. In the present case, we are concerned with removal of office bearers or a member of its Managing Committee. Clause 14 provides that any office bearers of the Union or a member of its Managing Committee can be removed by the General Meeting of the Members by a three-fourths majority for committing any fraud or having acted against the interests of the Union, provided the office bearer or the member to be removed is given adequate opportunity to explain his conduct. The Accredited Representatives have not brought any material on record to show that the procedure for removal of any office bearers of the Union or Members of its Managing Committee has been followed. No material is produced to substantiate that before passing no confidence motion, the office bearers or a member to be removed is given adequate opportunity to explain his conduct. In my opinion, the claim made by the Accredited Representatives that in the meeting held on 30.6.2012 no confidence was passed against the Elected Representatives and thereafter they ceased to be office bearers and the Managing Committee members of the Union, cannot be accepted.
As noted earlier, the case of the Accredited Representatives is that on 28.5.2012 requisition was given to the Elected Representatives to convene a Special General Meeting. Since no such meeting was convened, the requisitionists themselves called Special General Meeting on 30.6.2012. Clause 23 of the Constitution reads as under:
The President or the General Secretary may call a General Meeting of the members of the Union whenever he thinks necessary and shall call it on a requisition signed by one-fifth of the total strengths of the union within twenty days of the receipt of the requisition. In case the President or the General Secretary fails to convene such a meeting the requisitionists themselves shall call a meeting after due notice and the proceedings of the meeting shall be binding on the Union.
Perusal of clause 23 shows that if the President or the General Secretary of the Union failed to convene a meeting on a requisition signed by 1/5th of the total strengths of the Union, the requisitionists themselves shall call a meeting after due notice and the proceedings of the meeting shall be binding on the Union. Even accepting the case of the Accredited Representatives that such meeting was, in fact, held on 30.6.2012 account of failure of the Elected Representatives, the question is whether they can pass no confidence against the Elected Representatives. In the first place, no provision in the constitution was brought to my notice enabling the Accredited Representatives to pass no confidence motion. Secondly, the procedure laid down under clause 14 has to be followed before removing any office bearers of the Union or a member of its Managing Committee. In my opinion, the Accredited Representatives cannot give a go by to clause 14 of the Constitution. In other words, the office bearers of the Union or a member of its Managing Committee can be removed only after following the procedure laid down in clause 14 of the Constitution. In view thereof, the inevitable conclusion is that the Accredited Representatives cannot claim to be validly elected representatives of the Union either in the meeting of 11.7.2012 or 1.9.2012.
Apart from that, the Accredited Representatives made application at Exhibit UA-3 on 20.7.2012 for impleading them in the complaint filed by the Elected Representatives. Simultaneously on the same day they also made application to the Registrar of the Trade Union u/s 28(1-A) of the Act of 1926. By order dated 10.10.2012 the Deputy Registrar rejected the application. In other words, the Dy. Registrar refused to give consent for referring a dispute as respects whether or not any person is an office bearer or a member of a registered Trade Union including any dispute relating to wrongful expulsion of any such office bearer or member to the Industrial Court. It is also not in dispute that the Accredited Representatives did not challenge the said order. Mr. Naidu submitted that the complaint is instituted by the Union u/s 28(1) read with Items 3 and 5 of Schedule II and Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act of 1971. Schedule II lays down unfair labour practices on the part of employer and Schedule IV deals with general unfair labour practices on the part of employer. In other words, the complaint is instituted alleging unfair labour practices on the part of the employer namely respondent No. 1 company herein. I find substance in the submission of Mr. Naidu that for investigating unfair labour practices on the part of the employer, the Accredited Representatives are neither necessary nor proper parties. Regulation 110 of the Industrial Regulations, 1975 lays down that if the Court on hearing the parties before it decides that persons of any party is necessary before the Court it has power to direct such party to be impleaded as party in the proceedings. In other words, the Court has power to direct impleadment of only a necessary party and not merely a proper party.
Mr. Cama submitted that the Accredited Representatives are vitally interested in the outcome of the complaint as also they are vitally affected parties. He submitted that having regard to the prayers made in the complaint as well as in the application for interim relief, the Industrial Court will have to examine whether the complaint instituted by the Elected Representatives is, in fact, instituted by the duly elected representatives of the Union or not. In order to examine this question, the presence of the Accredited Representatives is absolutely necessary. For the reasons already indicated, I do not find any substance in this submission as the Accredited Representatives have failed to establish that the Elected Representatives who were elected in the Annual General Meeting held on 5.4.2012 were validly removed by following the procedure contemplated under the Constitution.
Mr. Cama further submitted that the order dated 10.10.2012 passed by the Dy. Registrar is not properly interpreted by the Tribunal. I do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Cama. The Dy. Registrar has observed that the Accredited Representatives have indirectly confirmed holding of the Annual General Meeting on 5.4.2012 and, therefore, he has grave doubt about the resolution that was passed in the meeting of 30.6.2012. In any case, the Dy. Registrar declined to give consent for referring the dispute u/s 28(1-A) of the Act, 1926 to the Industrial Court. The Accredited Representatives have admittedly not challenged the said order. I, therefore, do not find any merit in the submission of Mr. Cama that the order dated 10.10.2012 passed by the Dy. Registrar is not properly interpreted by the Elected Representatives.
Mr. Cama submitted that the Tribunal has not given any reasons for allowing the application filed by the Elected Representatives. Perusal of the impugned order and in particular paragraph 12 thereof shows that the Tribunal did not accept the submission made on behalf of the Accredited Representatives as regards the consequences of the order dated 10.10.2012 passed by the Dy. Registrar. The Tribunal observed that the conclusion which the learned Advocate Shri Sawant (Advocate of the Accredited Representatives) wants it to draw does not categorically speak that they are duly elected representatives or office bearers pursuant to the meeting which was held on 11.7.2012. In other words, the Tribunal held that the order dated 10.10.2012 passed by the Dy. Registrar does not hold that the Accredited Representatives were duly elected members or office bearers in the meeting held on 11.7.2012.
There is one more reason for declining to exercise power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Respondent No. 1-Union has instituted the present complaint against respondent Nos. 2 to 4 herein. The Union being dominus litus, is at liberty to sue the parties as respondents to the complaint. If for any reason the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the complaint is bad for non joinder of the necessary party, it will dismiss the complaint on that ground. In view of the discussion above, I do not find any substance in the petition. The petition fails and the same is dismissed. Rule is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs.