Telangana High Court
WA/1337/2006 of MR.G.Satyanarayana Vs The Commissioner of Labour, Anjaiah Bhavan on 22 December 2006
THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Appeal No.1337 of 2006 Between G.Satyanarayana ..Appellant AND The Commissioner of Labour and others ..Respondents :: JUDGMENT :: Counsel for the appellant Sri S.Ravindranath Counsel for respondents Government
HON’BLE SHRI G.S.SINGHVI, THE CHIEF JUSTICEANDHON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
Writ Appeal No.1337 of 2006BetweenG.Satyanarayana..Appellant ANDThe Commissioner of Labour and others ..Respondents
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
:: JUDGMENT ::
Counsel for the appellantSri S.RavindranathCounsel for respondentsGovernment Pleader for Labour 22.12.2006
Per G.S.Singhvi, CJ
This appeal filed against order dated 18.12.2006 passed by the learnedSingle Judge in WPMP No.33582 of 2006 in W.P.No.26151 of 2006 wherebyhe indirectly declined the appellant’s prayer for stay of the election to Executive Committee of Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board Union–327,can appropriately be termed as a frivolous piece of litigation, which deservesto be dismissed with costs.
In the main writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for restrainingrespondent No.4 – N.Janardhan, Secretary General, Andhra Pradesh StateElectricity Board Employees Union from holding the election scheduled to beconducted on 23.12.2006. He claims to have been elected as RegionalPresident of Vidyut Employees Union in 1975 and as its General Secretary in1976. That Union merged with respondent No.3 – Union. The appellant issaid to have been elected as Additional General Secretary of respondentNo.3 in 1983 and as General Secretary for Andhra area in 1997. In April,1999, he was elected as Secretary General of respondent No.3. He was re-elected to that post in January 2004. In the years 2001 and 2005, theappellant is said to have been elected as General Secretary, APINTUC. OnJune 26, 2006, President of respondent No.3 is said to have dissolved theCentral Executive Committee and replaced it with an ad hoc committee. Thegrievance of the appellant is that in complete disregard of Section 6 (hh) ofthe Trade Unions Act, 1926, respondent No.4 issued notification dated 29-11-2006 for holding election to the post of President.
It is borne out from the record that while issuing notice in the mainpetition and ordering that the same be listed after two weeks, the learnedSingle Judge declared that any election or nomination made to the ExecutiveCommittee of the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board Union-327 shall besubject to further orders which may be passed in the writ petition.
Sri S.Ravindranath, learned counsel for the appellant argued that inview of the patent illegality committed in the issue of notice dated 29-11-2006, the learned Single Judge ought to have stayed the process ofelection. Learned counsel emphasised that if election is allowed to be held,the appellant will suffer irreparable loss.
We have given serious thought to the arguments of the learned counsel,but have not felt impressed. In the main petition, the petitioner has not madea prayer for striking down the notice issued by respondent No.4. Therefore, itis highly doubtful whether, even while granting relief in the main petition, the Court will be able to nullify the election notice. Even if, for a moment, it isassumed that the Court may ignore the formulation of the prayer clause andaccept the appellant’s plea that election notice be struck down, his prayer forstay of the election cannot be entertained.
The law is well settled. Interlocutory intervention in the process ofelection is warranted only when it is meant to sub-serve the ongoing processand not when it obstructs the same. Only in extra-ordinary situation, the Courtmay exercise its discretion to interfere with the process of election to a body,organisation, institution etc. including a Union of the workers. At the time offinal adjudication, the Court can pass appropriate order and nullify theelection, but by an interim order, the process of election cannot be frustrated.
The issue of notice by the learned Single Judge in the main petitioncan, at best, be treated as indicative of the prima facie nature of the case setup by the petitioner-appellant. However, the three other elements, namely,balance of convenience, irreparable injury and the public interest are clearlyagainst grant of injunction. If the process of election is stultified by way ofinterim intervention of the Court, all those who are aspiring for the post in theUnion will be deprived of their legitimate right to compete in the election. That apart, by granting injunction against the process of election, the Courtcannot create a situation in which there will be no elective body or officebearer of the Union.
For the reasons mentioned above, we hold that the learned SingleJudge did not commit any error by declining to entertain the appellant’sprayer for stay of the election notice and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly.
For filing a frivolous litigation like the present one, the appellant issaddled with costs of Rs.5,000/-, which shall be deposited with the AndhraPradesh State Legal Services Authority within a period of one month. TheMember Secretary, Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority isdirected to inform the Court whether or not the appellant has deposited theamount of costs within the time specified in this order, so that if it becomesnecessary, further directions may be given by the Court for recovery of the amount of costs.
As a sequel to dismissal of the writ appeal, WAMP No.2835 of 2006filed by the appellant for interim relief is also dismissed.
G.S.SINGHVI, CJ
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J