AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The dispute brought before this Court concerns election of the office bearers of steel workers union.
Learned counsel for the parties would submit that during the pendency of the writ petitions, the original tenure of the office bearers has expired, therefore, the writ petitions have been rendered infructuous by efflux of time.
Shri Das, learned counsel for the petitioners, would refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of J. M. Biswas vs N. K. Bhattacharjee and others, reported in (2002) 4 SCC 68, wherein the following has been observed in para 10:-
"10. From the narration of facts and the contentions raised on behalf of the parties, it is clear that the dispute raised in the case has lost its relevance due to passage of time and subsequent events which have taken place during the pendency of the litigation. As noted earlier, the dispute in the case relates to election of office bearers of the South Eastern Railway Mens' Union. The dispute arose at a point of time when both the appellant and the respondent No. 1 were members of the said Union. Now both have ceased to be members of the Union. Further, successive elections have been held to elect office bearers and the office bearers so elected have been recognized by the management. In the circumstances, continuing this litigation will be like flogging the dead horse. Such litigation, irrespective of the result, will neither benefit the parties in the litigation nor will serve the interest of the Union. Accepting the contentions raised on behalf of respondent No. 1 that the successive elections held in the meantime were invalid because he was not permitted to participate in it and to quash all such elections and direct holding of fresh elections under the supervision of the Court, will be contrary to democratic functioning of the employees Union. Furthermore, Courts in the present situation of exploding dockets can ill afford to stand time in such an exercise."
Dr. Shukla, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP No.1428/2006, would submit that since the petitioners Ramesh Kumar Lodhi and others were not handed over the charge of the office for which they were elected, the writ petition has not been rendered infructuous.
The argument raised by Dr. Shukla, learned Senior counsel, runs contrary to the observation made by the Supreme Court. Even otherwise, no rule or regulation has been brought to the notice of the Court that the tenure for which the election was held would not commence unless the charge is handed over to the petitioners. In the absence of such provision, the tenure for which the election was held would commence from the date of declaration of result of the election and the tenure would come to an end on expiry of the period for which the election took place.
In the considered opinion of this Court, the writ petitions have been rendered infructuous by efflux of time.
Accordingly, all the writ petitions along with contempt petition stand disposed of.