South Western Railway Employees Sangha vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.—Writ petition by the South Western Railway Employees Sangha, a registered union under the Trade Unions

Act, 1926, which is aggrieved that an election conducted by the management of the South Western Railway in terms of the calendar of events

notified on 11-10-2007 [Annexure-D to the writ petition] and said to have been loaded on the internet giving it wide publicity, indicating that the

actual elections will take place on 26th, 27th and 28th November,2007 and the results will be declared on 3-12-2007, having been conducted and

the result declared on 6-12-2007 in terms of Annexure-K, declaring that fourth Respondent Nairutya Railway Mazdoor Sangha is declared as the

recognized union of South Western Railway subject to the outcome of WP No 7956 (M/B) of 2007, pending on the file of High Court at

Lucknow Bench, the present writ petition, presented contending that the Petitioner had not accepted the result; that the elections were not

conducted strictly in consonance with the scheme formulated by the Supreme Court for the purpose of conducting such elections; that the

declaration of result also is not in consonance with the said directions and therefore the Petitioner has raised a dispute before the General Manager

in terms of para-27 of the scheme; that the general manager who was required to resolve the dispute, having not acted upon the dispute raised by

the Petitioner, but in the interregnum taking steps to effectuate the results, which affects the interest of the Petitioner and hence the present writ

petition.

This Court while issued notice to the Respondents initially, had passed an order to maintain status quo as on 8-9-2008.

The Respondents having been served have entered appearance through counsel. Respondents 1 to 3 are represented by Sri G.R. Andanimath;

fourth Respondent is represented by Sri D.J. Naik; and M/s Shastri and Hegde are appearing for the fifth Respondent

While Sri Andanimath, learned Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3 opposes the writ petition saying that there are no grounds for interference in

the matter in writ jurisdiction; that the grievance of the Petitioner has been suitably responded by the endorsement issued by the CPC in terms of

Annexure-F dated 9-1-2008, Sri D.B. Naik, learned Counsel for the fourth Respondent, on behalf of whom statement of objections has also been

filed, has highlighted their own difficulties, particularly the fourth Respondent having been declared as the recognized union on behalf of the

employees of the zonal railways and they are being not provided with commensurate facilities to run their office etc., and that all the facilities are

cornered by the Petitioner-union, which is still squatting on the premises by taking advantage of the status quo order granted by this Court which is

to be vacated and the writ petition itself is to be dismissed.

Sri Suresh S. Joshi, learned Counsel for the Petitioner would very vehemently urge that the elections having not been conducted in consonance

with the modalities of the scheme formulated by the Supreme Court, such elections should be declared as illegal and without authority of law etc.,

has urged for granting further prayers as sought for in the writ petition.

On the other hand, Sri Andanimath, learned Counsel for the Union of India and the Railways, asserts that the Petitioner is not entitled for any of

the prayers sought for and if any one of the prayers is to be granted, it will amount to sitting in judgment over the manner of conducting the

elections in accordance with the scheme; that the scheme itself has provided for an election tribunal - the general manager of the railways - to

resolve such disputes and therefore the declaration of result cannot be made subject matter of writ of certiorari etc.

It is also the grievance of the Petitioner that the dispute raised by the Petitioner has not been resolved by the general manager, the competent

person, but the Petitioner is being shown only an endorsement issued by the CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.

On a pointed question, Sri Andanimath, learned Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3 does submit that the dispute has not been looked into by

the general manager and can be taken that it is still pending before the general manager.

On an examination of the petition pleadings and the annexure and the submissions at the Bar, while I am of the clear opinion that the prayer as

sought for in the writ petition cannot be granted, particularly, the prayer for a declaration that the election itself is bad, illegal etc., and therefore the

incidental reliefalso cannot be granted, as Sri Suresh S. Joshi, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, in the alternative, seeks for a writ of mandamus,

submitting that a writ of mandamus should be issued for the reason that the election dispute having raised even as back as on 7-10-2007, it is

required to be resolved expeditiously and cannot be kept on the file of the general manager indefinitely.

With regard to the interim order granted by this Court for maintaining status quo, I am of the view that no such order can be granted by this

Court, as this Court does not examine the merits of any development in the course of the conduct of the elections even in terms of the modalities of

the scheme formulated by the Supreme Court and as indicated in para-27 of the scheme, which reads as under

.... Any dispute regarding election/counting of votes shall be raised on the day following last day of the elections / declaration of result. After

expiry of the period, the result declared by the General Manager of the Zonal Railway unit be treated as final

It is only the general manager who can constitute the election tribunal and will have to look into the matter. When the matter is pending before the

general manager and the jurisdiction of the general manager being only relating to the declaration of the result, wherein the manner in which the

conduct of the election will also be looked into along with other prayers, particularly the relief based on an earlier result in favor of one or the other

trade union or recognition which one or the other trade union had earlier cannot be continued nor can be made incidental to a dispute in terms of

the paragraph 27 of the scheme. I say so for the reason that when once election has been conducted under the scheme, and the result declared, the

consequences necessarily follow and that cannot be prevented or undone unless the election tribunal itself setting aside the result of elections.

Therefore, while the interim order granted by this Court earlier in this writ petition is dissolved also for the reason that as submitted at the Bar,

the Petitioner has approached a civil court in respect of the premises in their occupation and has sought for certain relief and rightly so as the

question of the Petitioner continuing in possession of a premises whether as licensee or in any other capacity, is not a matter which is required to be

examined in writ jurisdiction and when the said issue is already the subject matter of determination by the civil court, and parties will have to abide

by the decision of the civil court in respect of the possession of any property and the occupation of the premises by the Petitioner being incidental

to the Petitioner retaining the status of a recognized as the recognized trade union by the management, the interim order granted in this petition

cannot be continued and it is accordingly dissolved.

The third Respondent-general manager is directed to examine and resolve the election dispute raised by the Petitioner pending before him

within a period of one month from the date of conclusion of hearing and for such purpose, as submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner

the Petitioner will appear before the general manager on 19-11-2008.

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.