GULSHAN KUMAR Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the S. C. Prabhakar and Pradeep Kumar cases the Petitioners have prayed for the issuance of a writ of prohibition or any other writ, order or direction in that nature restraining the Respondents, and particularly respondent No. 3, Uttariya Railway Mazdoor Union (URMU) , from acting on the List of Central Council Members circulated vide Communication dated 24.5.2005; that directions be issued for the enforcement of the Rules for regulation of association of Non Gazetted Railway Servants framed by Respondent No. 1; it has also been prayed that Communication dated 24.5.2005 of the Respondent No. 1 be quashed. In the Praveen Kumar case a prayer has been made for the issuance of a writ of prohibition or any other similar and appropriate writ or order calling for the records pertaining to the meeting of the Central Council/working committee held on 03/04. 06.2005 and for restraining the Respondents from taking any further steps pursuant to the decisions on 03/04. 06.2005 as that Meeting was without jurisdiction. In the Arvind Kumar case a prayer for calling of the records pertaining to their removal from the Electoral List, and after judicial scrutiny to direct the inclusion of their names in the Electoral List has been made; it has also been prayed that the election process of URMU be not initiated until their names are included in the Electoral List. In the Vinod Kumar Bhatt case it has been prayed that the Respondent Union be restrained from functioning till such time the freshly elected Office Bearers assume charge. In the Gulshan Kumar case a prayer has been made for restraining the Respondent from deleting/ amending/ terminating/ changing the List of the office-bearers at various levels of URMU and the maintenance of status quo till the elections are completed. In the Brij Lal case the Court has been petitioned for restraining the Authority/ Respondent from preparing the Electoral List as per Lists submitted by URMU and other factions of the Union as the List of both factions are illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Constitution. It has also been prayed that directions be issued for the enforcement of the Rules and regulations of Union in the making of the Electoral List and Election of the branches before finalising the Electoral List. IS WRIT jurisdiction AVAILABLE for adjudicating UPON STRICTLY trade-UNION INTERNAL DISPUTES

(2.) Mr. Hansaria, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent has submitted that whether jural credence is to be given to the Voters' List dated 25.2.2005 or 24.5.2005 is purely a private law dispute between two factions of the Union and no element of public law is involved. No action or decision of an 'authority' is called upon to be considered by way of judicial review.

(3.) In Federal Bank Ltd. vs. Sagar Thomas, (2003) 10 SCC 733, it has been posited that "a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of india may be maintainable against (i) the State (Government) ; (ii) an Authority; (iii) a statutory body; (iv) an instrumentality or agency of the State; (v) a company which is financed and owned by the State; (vi) a private body run substantially on State funding; (vii) a private body discharging a public duty or positive obligation of a public nature; and (viii) a person or a body under a liability to discharge any function under any statute, to compel it to perform such statutory function".