DUSHYANT SINGH Vs. RAM PRAKASH SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TARUN Agarwala, J. Uttari Railway Mazdoor Union is a registered Trade Union under Section 8 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (hereinafter referred to as the Union ). The bye-laws of the Union speaks of a three tier management system, namely, the Central Council at the Headquarters, the Divisional Council in a Division and a Branch Council which are attached to different divisions. Each of these councils has its own set of office bearers who are elected every three years. The present dispute relates to the office bearers of the Divisional Council at Moradabad. The plaintiff-respondent No. 1 claims himself to be the elected Divisional Secretary of the Divisional Council of Moradabad whereas the petitioner defendant No. 4 alleges himself to be appointed as the Divisional Secretary pursuant to the resolution dated 28-9-2003.

(2.) THE brief facts, as culled out from the pleadings is, that the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 was functioning as a Secretary of the Divisional Council at Moradabad as well as a working President of the Central Council at Headquarters. THEre were charges of murder, embezzlement and autocratic functioning against the plaintiff-respondent No. 1. It is alleged that several requisitions were made to call a meeting of the working committee of the office bearers which was not being done by the plaintiff and, eventually the general body of the Central Council, in a meeting held on 28-9-2003, unanimously resolved by a resolution No. 5, to remove the plaintiff as the working president of the Central Council as well as from the post of Secretary of the Divisional Council at Moradabad. By resolution No. 10, the petitioner was elected as the Assistant General Secretary of the Central Council and was further directed to work as the Secretary of the Divisional Council till fresh elections are held. It is alleged that the plaintiff respondent No. 1 did not hand over the charge of the working president of the Central Council nor handed over the charge of the post of the Secretary of the Divisional Council. Accordingly the office bearers of the Central Council, including the petitioner, filed Original Suit No. 138 of 2004 for a permanent injunction restraining the plaintiff- respondent No. 1, from interfering in the working of the petitioner as an office bearer of the Central Union. A further prayer was made that the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 be directed to hand over the possession of the fixed deposit receipts, official residence, telephones, car, etc. which the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 was using while working as the President of the Central Council.

(3.) HEARD Sri S. N. Varma, the learned senior Counsel assisted by Sri M. D. Singh Shekhar and Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, Advocates for the petitioner and Sri Murlidhar, the learned senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Bal Krishna Narayan and Sri S. L. Kesarwani for the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 and the Standing Counsel for respondent No. 4. Inspite of the service of the notice, no one appeared for the railways, namely, for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.