INDRAJITSINH VIJAYSINH SOLANKI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this petition is made to the action of the respondent No.6, who was appointed as Election Officer, pursuant to the directions of this Court, as contained in the judgment dated 23.12.2013 recorded on Special Civil Application No.288 of 2013. Under these circumstances, to appreciate the controversy in the present petition, the circumstances leading to filing of Special Civil Application No.288 of 2013 ('the earlier petition' for short) needs to be kept in view. It is recorded that the contesting respondent in this petition is respondents No.4 and 5. In earlier petition also, the contesting respondents were respondents No.4 and 5. Respondents No.4 and 5 in both the petitions are the same persons. The present petition is contested, principally on the ground of maintainability. The contest is from the respondents No.4 and 5. Therefore the question of maintainability of this petition needs to be adjudicated first.

(2.) Mr.K.M.Patel, learned Senior Advocate for respondents No.4 and 5 has vehemently submitted that, this petition is not maintainable. According to respondents No.4 and 5, the petitioners need to file an election petition, or they can avail an alternative remedy of approaching the Industrial Court as provided under Section 14A of the Trade Unions Act, 1926, or can approach the Civil Court by filing a Civil Suit. Reliance is placed on number of authorities in this regard, which are referred hereinafter. In substance, the contest of respondents No.4 and 5 is that, this Court may not go into the merits of the matter.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr.Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners has vehemently contended that, respondents No.4 and 5 have attempted to frustrate the order of this Court dated 23.12.2013 in the earlier petition and it was facilitated by respondent No.6. It is submitted that since respondent No.6 was acting under the orders of this Court, his mischief needs closer scrutiny by this Court and the same be examined by this Court. It is also submitted that, there is no other remedy to the petitioners, atleast no efficacious remedy in the facts of this case. On behalf of petitioners also, number of authorities are cited to counter the authorities relied on behalf of respondents No.4 and 5.