(1.) Petitioners are former employees of the Tata Oil Mills Company Limited and in that capacity, were members of the second respondent Union. The Tata Oil Mills Company was established in the year 1919 and the second respondent Union was registered in the year 1939, in accordance with the provisions of the Trade Unions Act, 1926. At the time of its registration, the Union had about 2000 members and with their contribution, had purchased 16 cents of land in Cochin. Subsequently, a building was also constructed in the property, portion of which was let out for rent. In 1993, the Tata Oil Mills Company merged with Hindustan Lever Limited. Following the merger, more than 900 employees opted to retire under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme and thereafter, no further appointment was made by the Company. Resultantly, the number of employees in the Company reduced drastically, which resulted in reduction in the number of members in the second respondent Union also. Faced with such a situation, the existing members of the Union decided to sell the landed property and the building thereon.
(2.) The petitioners and the other retired employees of the Company have registered an association by name 'the Tata Oil Mills Retired Employees Association' (for short "the Association"). The Association raised objection against the attempt to sell the property, on the ground that the property was purchased utilising the contributions of the then existing employees of the Company, who are members of the Association. It was contended that even after retirement, the employees continued to be the members of the Union, since there is no provision in the bye-laws of the Union regarding cessation of membership on retirement. Alleging that the objections of the Association was not being considered, the petitioners and certain other retired employees approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.9849 of 2013, which was disposed under per Ext.P6 judgment, directing the objection filed before the Registrar of Trade Unions to be considered and disposed of within two months. Accordingly, the first respondent considered the objection and rejected the same as per Ext.P7 order.
(3.) The writ petition is filed seeking to set aside Ext.P7 order and for a declaration that the Trade Union is not competent to dispose of its properties, except for the purpose of the Union or on its dissolution, and for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to restrain the second respondent union from alienating its landed property.