The Nizam Sugars Workers Union vs The Deputy Commissioner of Labour and Others

Krishna Saran Shrivastav, J.—Assailing the letter No.B/1425/94, dated 2-2-1995, of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad, the petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus quashing the same on the ground that it is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner - Union was recognised as the Union in the month of April, 1994 and thereafter, a General Body meeting of the Union was convened on 11-4-1994 wherein one Sri Venkateswara Rao Desai was elected as the President, and the deponent, K. Mysaish was elected as the General Secretary. In addition to them, Vice-President, Treasurer, Joint Secretary, Chief Organising Secretary, Organising Secretary and Publicity Secretary, etc., were also elected. A list of office bearers was submitted to the management-third respondent. On the basis of a letter written by the fifth respondent that on 22-12-1994 a meeting of the General body was convened and that he was elected as the General Secretary and the fourth respondent as the President of the Union, the first respondent, on 19-1-1995, directed the second respondent to verify the records of the petitioner-Union and to intimate the names of the office bearers of the Union to the third respondent-Management. In pursuance of this letter, on 2-2-1995 the second respondent informed the third respondent, namely, the management that the fourth respondent has been elected as the President, the fifth respondent has been elected as the General Secretary and respondents Nos. 6 to 21 have been elected as Vice Presidentjoint Secretary, Chief Organising Secretary, Organising Secretary, Publicity Secretary and Treasurer respectively. It is further alleged that the impugned proceedings are the outcome of rank manipulation by the fifth respondent. The first and second respondents succumbed to the pressure tactics of the political party in power and have indulged in issuing the impugned illegal proceedings. A copy of the representation, alleged to have been given by the fifth respondent, was hot furnished to the petitioner-Union, and no notice was given or enquiry was conducted by them before issuing the impugned proceedings. The fifth respondent did not possess any record and the alleged record appears to have been concocted. Under these circumstances, the impugned proceedings, dated 2-2-1995, in proceedings No.B/1425/94 should be quashed.

The first respondent, in the counter, denied the allegations in toto. It is pleaded that the group led by the fourth respondent informed, vide letter dated 24-12-1994, that as per Rule 25 of the bye-laws, the General Body meeting was conducted on 22-12-1994 at5-30 p.m. under the Presidentship of Sri Sambasiva Rao, Vice President of the Union, in the premises of N.S.F. Gents Club near the factory ma in gate of Shakkarnagar and passed resolutions. In this meeting, the fourth respondent was elected as the President and the fifth respondent was elected as the General Secretary unanimously. On the request of the fourth respondent, the first respondent directed the second respondent to ascertain the facts in this regard and addressed a letter, vide Memo No.D/404/95, dated 19-1-1995, to verify the record of the petitioner-Union as to whether the Union followed the bye-laws of the Union and to submit a detailed report to the first respondent. The second respondent, in compliance with the first respondent''s memo, stated that he had verified the record s of respondents 4 and 5 and as per his findings, respondents 4 to 21 were elected as office bearers of the petitioner- Union, vide his letter, dated 2-2-1995, namely, the impugned proceedings. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, namely, the first respondent is empowered to examine and decide regarding the manner in which the members of the executive or other office bearers of the trade Union shall be appointed and removed, as also to examine the compliance of Section 28(2) read with the bye- laws/Rules of the Union. All the adverse allegations have been denied.

The fourth respondent filed a separate counter and an additional counter denying the allegations made in the petition and submitted that no valid election, prior to 22-12-1994, had been conducted and Sri K. Mysaiah was not the General Secretary of the Union. It is further alleged that no office bearers were duly elected. It is further alleged that after due notice, a meeting of the General Body of the Union was convened on 22-12-1994 wherein he was elected as the President, while the fifth respondent was elected as the General Secretary, and respondent Nos. 6 to 21 were elected as the office bearers of the petitioner- Union. After due enquiry, the impugned letter has been issued and therefore, it cannot bequashed. The fifth respondent has filed a separate counter on behalf of respondents 4 to 11, taking almost similar pleas that had been taken by the fourth respondent.

The allegations that no notice was served on Sri K. Mysaiah and Sri Venkateswara Rao Desai for convening the meeting of the General Body on 22-12-1994, that no election was held in the alleged General Body meeting on 22-12-1994, that no notice was given to them before the second respondent held the enquiry, that all the proceedings have been done under pressure tactics of the ruling party in the State of Andhra Pradesh and the fourth respondent, and which allegations are specifically denied by the respondents, are all questions of fact. Since the object of Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the enforcement and hot the establishment of the right no right can be determined by taking evidence of the parties. I do not propose to enquire into the rival claims, based on oral evidence because recording oral evidence means entering into the field of investigation, which should not be decided in Writ Petition. A question of fact, which would involve a great deal of dispute, requires examination of evidence. Suffice it to say that where there are disputed questions of fact, they cannot be gone into or at any rate cannot be resolved by this Court.

For the foregoing reasons, the question that looms large for determination is - whether Sri Venkateswara Rao Desai and K. Mysaiah were entitled to get a notice before the initiation of the proceedings in question?

There is no material on record to hold that notices were ordered to be issued to the President and the Secretary of the petitioner-Union. There is also no material on record to hold that the Enquiring Officer was in the know of fact that Sri K. Venkateswara Rao Desai was the President, and Sri K. Mysaiah was the General Secretary of the petitioner-Union. It is pertinent to note that in the affidavit Sri K. Mysaiah has alleged that, after the election held on 11-4-1994, a list of office bearers was submitted to the Management, namely, the third respondent, but it has not been alleged in this affidavit that such a list of office bearers was ever submitted either to the first respondent or the second respondent. There is no provision which provides for issuance of notice to the out-going President and General Secretary of the Union.

It is note worthy that, on their own showing, the election of the General Body was held on 11-4-1994 and it is alleged that Sri Venkateswar Rao Desai and Sri K. Mysaiah were elected as the President and the General Secretary respectively of the Union for a period of one year, which has expired on 11-4-1995. The time has run out. It is alsoa matter of record that the writ petition was filed on 21-2-1995 and interim suspension was granted on 24-2-1995. The interim suspension is still in force. This follows that Sri Venkateswara Rao Desai and Sri K. Mysaiah have acted as the President and the General Secretary of the Union for the full term of one year. Under these circumstances, it appears that the writ petition itself has become infructuous.

In the result, the writ petition is wholly infructuous and therefore, it is dismissed, but without any order as to costs.