HOSUR ASHOK LEYLAND Vs. A DENNIS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order of the learned District Judge No: 1, Hosur, made in LA. No: 6881 of 2011 in O.S. No: 185 of 2011 dated 02.01.2012. The matter concerns with the Trade Union Election. The first petitioner is the Hosur Ashok Leyland Unit-II Employees Union represented by its General Secretary and the second petitioner is the Vice President of the 1st petitioner association. The first respondent is the contestant who filed a suit praying to pass a decree and judgment to grant an injunction directing the defendant to stay the further proceedings of sworn in function proposed to be held on 31.08.2011 and repolling scheduled on 17.09.2011 till the disposal of the suit and directing the defendant to conduct recounting of the votes casted for the office of Vice President alone and report to this Hon'ble Court before declaring the result. The second respondent herein, an Election Officer, appointed for that purpose is also a defendant in the suit.

(2.) The 1st respondent is a third party and till date not a party to any of the proceedings pending before the trial Court. Before the trial Court, the 1st respondent herein filed an interlocutory application in I.A. No: 726 of 2011 praying to implead him as a party respondent in the suit in O.S. No: 185 of 2011. That application was taken up on file and the trial Court allowed that application by an order dated 16.09.2011. By virtue of the said order, he became a party to the proceedings. Subsequently, plaintiff filed I.A. No : 881 of 2011 praying to declare the repolling conducted on 16.09.2011 as null and void as the respondent and the petitioner in the impleading petition did not adhere to the oral orders of the trial Court. This I.A. came to be allowed on 02.01.2012. Challenging the same, the defendants are before this Court in the present Civil Revision Petition.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner contended that though the Trial Court has got jurisdiction to decide the matter before it, still it is duty bound to pass a speaking order. But in the present case, it has passed a cryptic order which is liable to be set aside on that sole ground. Counsel further submits that the impugned order came to be passed without even serving notice on these revision petitioners and hence, the same is per se illegal.