ii
1 W
In rm men counr or
cnzcurr amen AT %
Dated this the 23rd day of ocmber%%2908i[f T
BEFo12{'a%%jk V'
nnv: Honrnns rm Jcsrzcn %
Wrt'tPeti1i9n No "of__2_>008. IG}!»1REv§[.:
B :
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWA? 'éi3§PLa§YE1E»é'.s3ANGHA
CENTRAL. Fosfrcm . v_ 'V
BY 1T3 TGENERM. SECRE'I'ARY'"
ii: ANAND £2AO,"BU'i1,DmG NO 397
O?POSIT'E'TG"DRMS'0.FF§CE
" A' S Joshi, Adv)
PETITIONER
V mach iI1NDIA
*-.VREPRfESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
MIH¥S'k'3?éY OF RAILWAYS
RAIL BI-IAVAN, NEW DELHI
CHAIRMAN, RAILWAYS BUM?!)
J ~ .NEw 33131.3:
H GENERAL MAANGER
SOUTH WESTERN RAELWAY
HUBLI, HEAD QUARTERS
HUBLI
NAIRUTYA RAELWAY MAZDOOR SANGHA
BY §'I'S GENERAL SECRETARY
DIVISIONAL OFFICE COMPOUND
BY THE SIBE OF' ATM HUBLI
HUBLI 1
BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY
IN FRONT OF DRMS OFFICE
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAH-'.4 , " '
HUBLI
5 SOUTH WESTERN RAELWAY MAZDQOR U1'?¥iv;'3I\3fl:~.. «
[Sri G R An<1anjmat!3,A'"Adv_.for R41 1:0 3';
Sri I)..J'~ Naik, Adv: ._for 53-4;
M] s Sha:.=.t:r'i'% &' Heagdfz, Ad§ws%f"TERN*-- RAILi5I_A3'». ADNEIHESTRATTON IS ILLEGAL AND
WITHOiJT.AU'i'§:I€}R~¥TfYV OF"iAW,'*AT RE--D AND ETC.
i¥.TvII1S_PI£A'Ai'I9I*i(>1s;3 C01~v.€l.1$I€.'/r.V__€3?'sI FOR (moms ms BAY, THE COURT
MADE THfiF'{)LL€)WTN€}; _ '-
' E:3(4)R.DER
.' V' - 'V := :WT~Iit pgti%;i<;zi"i5y"tI1e South Western Railway Employees
union under the Trade Unimzs Act,
1936, is aggieved that an electitm conducted by the
of the South Western Rafiway in terms of the
'g of events notified on 11-102007 [Anm::xure-~D to
" writ petition] and said to have bmn loaded on the
intemet giving it wide publicity, indicating that the actual
elections will take piano on 26*, 2731 and 28* November,
2007 and the results will be declared on 3-
been conducted and the zeeult
terms of Axmexure-K, declaring: f;
Nairutya Railway Mazdoof isp 'the
necogmzed' union of South to tide
outcome of WP No ' on the file
of High Writ pefifion,
presented had not accepted
the conducted strictly in
formulated by the Supreme
Court such elections; that the
" __ of is not in consonance with the said
therefore the petitioner has raised 9. dispute
Mir in tame of para-27 of the
sohenee; that the general manager who was required to
the dispute, having not acted upon the dispuee
' by the peu'tim1er, but in the inmrrwzum taking
steps to efiectuate the resukts, which aflbcts the interest of
the petitioner and hence the present writ petition.
V
2. This court while issued notice to
initially, had passed an order
8--9-2008. _ __ ' %
3. The respondents
appearance through c9unsei;” 1.. to 3 am
represented by Sri G respondent is
represented D and Hegde
are
mspo1;deIlts.,l’v -v.3A'<}pposes " l s the writ petition saying' that
no for interfarnce 'm tlm matter in writ
the griavancc of the petitioner has been
by the endarsement issued by the CPC
terI;.'a;l:$l'i-of Anncxurc-F' dated 9-1-2003, Sri 1:: 3 Naik,
counsel for the foam: respormcnt, cm behafi' of
' statement of objectiens has also bwl filed, has
A highlighted their own difficultics, particularly the fourth
respondent having been declmed as the
on behalf of the empioyees of the"'2E;ngl
are being not provided with "
their was etc., and that
the petitione.r–union, on the
premises by taking qua order
granted by am the writ
petition %
5. iaamed counsel fer the pefitioncr
would that the elections having not
_ beelaffiazxducttid with the modalities of the
by the Supreme Court, such elections
as iilewl and Without authority of law
‘.Vetc.,.44uha:§ m’ged:. ‘V for granting further prayers as sought for ‘m
peuaon.
6.] ‘ “On the other hand, Sri Andarrnnath, leanm counsel
‘V V the Union of India and the Raiiways, asserts that the
petitioner is not entitlcd for any of the prayers sought for
and if any one of the prayers is to be granted,
to sitting in judment over the manner of
elections in accordance with
itself has provided for an Veisgztioii’ vfiic ” V
manager of the railways – disputes mad
therefore the of not be 1:VtA$adc subject
matterlofwrit of ‘ ‘
7. It petitioner me; the
dispute raise’ bwn resolved by
the genmal person, but the
petitioner ig-,~,~ gm. “an endmsement issued by
Sri Am-1am’mam, learned
. fof 1 to 3 does sumit ttmt the
not been looked into by the mmrai manager
be taken that ‘K. is sax: pending more the general
,, /» . x \’ \ \ ” fix
9. On an n of the petition the
annextlre and the submissions at the Bar,
clear opinion that the prayer
petition cannot be granted, pa1t;”ic111;ériy, a
declaration that uzeexectioriig-5:11 is e’i;e., and
therefore the inddentgd as Sri
Sumesh s Joshi, lwmed ffi:e–.petitiox1er, in the
alternative, of V’ “fins, subm1%1g’ that
a. for the reason that
the even as back as on 7-10~–
2007, is expedeciously mad cannot
* be file ti1e.–,=£«:.ne general manager indefinitely.
A to the interim order gantw by this mam:
.V for”inai1itaiiih1gstmxsquo,Imnoftt1eviewthat11om1ch
be granted by this court, as th$ court dew not
–‘ the merits of any development in the course of the
T of the elect1o’ I18 even in terms of the modafities of
J
the scheme formulated by the supmme _ a:xs
indicated in para-27 of the sct1emc,..which .
27. Any @5911?’ . %.y
election,/counting ofvo£s_s shoal! be the ‘
the Zonal final
It is the oonwtum the
election wiiil into the matter.
When the general manager
and the manager being only
relating’ to the whet-em’ the mammr
in yvhich Vfllcvielecfion will also be loked into
alffiing particularly the relief msed on an
of one as’ the other trade union or
or the other made union had earlier
nor can he made incidental to a
{films ofthe mragraph 27 ofthe scheme. I say
reason that when once election hm-3 been
tmda the scheme, and the result declared, the
oonseqoenoes necessmily follow and
prevented or undone unless t11eMmelectioi1″ itoeif
setting aside the result of elecflono. 3
11. Therefore, while the this
court eawlier in this for the
reason that as petitioner has
approached premises in their
relief and rightly so
as the in possession of
a pre1n1’sez3_jfiv’hether*jVoe:_’lioeinoee”‘. or in any other capacity, is
V not fag.’ taattet ‘is toquined to be exmnined in writ
when the said issue is already the subject
‘on by the cum’ ‘3 court, and parties will
H V’ .V haveto by the decision of the civil court ‘H1 respect of
H K of -any property and the occupation of the
p1~¢mes by the pefitioner hem inciciental to the petitioner
‘ the status ofa recognized as the recognized trade
union by the enL the interim order gantod in this
10
petition cannot be continued and it is accondingly
dissolved. .4 .,
1 1. The third respondent-«general manfixf :is-
examine and resolve the election dispute.
petitioner pending before him
from the date of conclusitm of s:.1c ‘i1
purpose, as submitted by for the
petitioner the pefifiénei’ _w:fi}l the general
12. Wrifpetitieix-__ie*’giiepmda” ofaccordingjy.
Sé!-3:.
Eufigfi
e *pjkee