The High Court · 2025

Petition under Sectron 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to appoint an adhoc body to manage the 4th Respondent until the completion of the elections to be completed as per the bye-laws of the 4th Respondent and all consequential proceedings pending the disposal of the writ petition lA NO: 4 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Courl may be pleased to extend the interim order dated 2610312025 granted in l.A. No. 2 of 2O2S in W.P.No. 9208 of 2025 lill further orders lA NO: 5 OF 2025 Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the oircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Courl may be pleased to extend the interim order dated 1610412025 granted in lA. No. 2 of 2025 in W.P.No. 9208 of 2025 ltl further orders lA NO: 6 OF 2025 Petition under Section 'l 51 CPC praying that in the lircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to -. --li:.- . - _/,/ // extend the interim order dated 16104112025 granted in l.A. No. 2 of 2025 in W.P.No. 9208 of 2025 till further orders IA NO: 7 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to extend the interim order daled 1610412025 granted in l.A. No. 1 of 2025 in W.P. No. 9208 of 2025 till further orders lA NO: 3 OF 2025 Between: Telangana Electricity Employees, 1 104 Union, Represented by its Secretary Regd.No 1104 (Recognrsed) Vidyut Karmika Bhavan, H.No..6-1-48, Mint Compound, Hyderabad - 500 004. .....PETITIONERYRESPONDENT NO.4 AND 1 Salvaji Venkata Ramana Rao, S/o. Late S Lakshman Rao, aged about 56 years, Occ Govt Employee, R/o '10-3-394, Plot No.74, Road No.2, Hindupuri colony' Karimnagar-505001 ...pETrroNERypETrroNER 2. The State of Telangana, Through its Principal Secretary, Labour, Employment, Training and Factories Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad. Hyderabad, Telangana

3. The Registrar of Trade Unions, Office of the Labour Commrssioner, 4. The Commissioner of Labour, Taks Bhavan, RTC X Rd, near Devi Theatre, Chikkadpally,Himayatnagar, Hyderabad, Telangana 500020 ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 2610312025 passed in l.A No. 2 Of 2025 in the main Writ Petition, otherwise the Respondent No.4 will be put to grave and irreparable loss that cannot be compensated at a later poinl of time. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. RAJA SHEKAR RAO SALVAJI Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1to3: AGP FOR LABOUR Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI R. ANURAG The Court made the following: ORDER -----]--T----------------- - ,lr&Er4t e.€:-'r- t.. '. |:":-. ,.!/ ::: - 7 I SK, J t\;P N.).92o8 oJ 202s THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.92O8 of 2o25 ORDER:

1. Heard Sri Salvaji Raja Shekar Rao, k:arned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Govt:rnment Pleader for Labour ar-id trmployment appearing lbr the respondent No.3 and Sri R.Anurag, learned Counsel lo:- the respondent No.4 and perused the record 2 . The learned Counsel lor the petitior,. er submits that the petitioner 15 an employee clf Northern Power Distribution Company of Telalgana Limitcd (NpDTCL) and a Member of the rcspondent No.4/Telanqana Electricity Employees L 1O4 Union. The respondent No.4 conducted an Emergency Central Executive Meeting on i 1 .03.2025, wherein they took a decision to conduct the elections for the Central Executive Committee Members. On the next day i.e. on 12.03.2025 the respondent No.4 issued an Ilgction Notification indicating that the Fifth State General 2 ^.. l"i-..,*.*, ' \r-. .] ,ri , WP No.9208 of 2025 Y. \ ". \4* Council Meeting on 27.03.2025 for electing Central Executive Committee Members. Subsequently,

17.O3.2025 another election notification was issued stating that the Sth Session of the State General Council u,ould be held on 27.O3.2O25 and Election of Office bearers also on the same date

3. The learned Counsel lor the petitioner would submit that the Election Notilications issued on 12.03.2025 and

17.O3.2025 lacks procedural fairness, such as no independent trlection Ofhcer was appointed, no public notice of the Election Notification was issued, no minimum time gap for election was given, no publication of voters list, no procedure was contemplated for nominations and the scrutiny process was mentioned in the election notification. Most of the Members including the petitioner were denied the opportunity to participate, nominate or contest. --rffia'"57 i &:*r:.,r , ..,r'il 3 .sI(, J Wl' No.9208 af 2A25

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that Clause 23(l) and 30 (S) of the I3ye_laws of the responclent No.4 specifies the mode of ek:ction. As per the said claust:s the respondent No.4 h:rs to appoint a Chairman for conducting the elections and further all the elections at erll levels had to be through secret bailot only. That being the case, the incumbent office bearers of the respondenl. No.4 had even today not appointecl any person as Chan'rmar-r to conduct the elections ancl no steps were taken to conduct elections through secret oaliot.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioncr r,r.ould submit that the respondent No.4 flouted all thr: Rules and the incumbent office bearers are trving to get Lhemselves elected illegally. Further, the three_,vcar term of the present ofhce bearers was completed on 2.1 .1O.2O24. The incumbent office bearers are illega-lly continuing in the present positions and now flouting all the norms to the 1$etriment of the Members of the respondent No.4 4 SK' .] WP No.92cB of 2025

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner tried to get the details of the election, but the respondent No'4 refused to give any such detailson24.o3.2o25andthereforerequestedtoa'llowthe writ petition by setting aside the impugned eiection notihcations.

7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of hi.s contentions relied on the foliowing Judgments:

7. B.C.Sharma and another Vs' M.L.Bho.lla and others 1 2. Food CorPoration of Corporation and others India Staff Union Vs', Food 2 g. Pangam Cements Emplogees- Union' - d.nother Vs', Pangam cemgttt:- ";; Zio^^i""i"n"r of Labou1 Hgderabad 3 Kurnool District and another Vs'

8. The learned Assistalt Government Pleader for Labour and Employment basing the counter hled by the respondent No.3 would' submit that the term of the present committee completed and such conducting of the election I (2006) 10 scc 410 2 1995 SuPP (11 SCC 678 3 2004 (1) LLN 922 5 sK, ._r wP No.92O8 af2025 is mandatory. As per the provisions, appointment of triection Olficer under observation of the respondent No.3 is justified, therefore as per the procedure and the material on record, the Court may pass appropriate orders for conducting the elections as per the bye-laws. Moreover, the respondent No.3 is having an authoritl. to appoint the trlection Officer to conduct polls as per the bye-lau,s of the Telangana trlectricity trmployees Union.

9. The learned Assistant Government pleader rvould further submit that as per the records and information available with the office, it has been obserwed that the respondent No.4 failed to conduct the clections for the office bearers within the period manclated under the registered bye-laws which stipulates th:it the elections must be held every three years. As per the records, the last glection was conducted in the year 2O2l and it amounts to a' willful contravention of the provisions of the Trade a serious breach of law. which Unions Act, 1926 and 6 .SK J WP No 9208 ol2025 formed the basis for cancellation of the registration granted to the Union and prayed the Court to d'ispose of the writ petition by passing appropriate orders'

10. The learned Counsel for the respondent No'4 basing on the counter filed by the respondnet No'4 would submit that the Election Notification dated 12'03'2025 have been issued in compliance of the bye-lar""s of the respondent No.4. Even assuming but not admitting that the notifications were issued in violation of the bye-laws of RespondentNo.4, the q'rit jurisdiction cannot be invoked to question of the action of a private party on grounds of being in violation of non-statutory rules/bye-laws' When thepetitioneradmitstothefactofthebye-lassbeing governing rules, he himself is bound by it as such' If there is any violation, the remedy does not lie to the Writ and it lies to the comPetent Civil Court' ''.': -+ri{J;i.:ir3t*:r,. -- l:..-,r'...: )" :;- , - 7 SK, J W No.92OA of2025

11. The learned Counsel for the respondent No.4 would further sul>mit that the respondent No.4 has not flouted any Rules as alleged by the petitioner. ir_r fact it is the petitioner who sta_lled the election by f,rling :he present writ petition on false and frivolous grounds. The stand of the petitioner itself is contradictory, as one hand the petitioner alleges that t.he incumbent office bearers ar.c continuing in their presenl positions without conducting t:lections arrd on the other hand he himself has sought for stalling the elections process by hling the instant wnt petition ald obtained interim order by showing non_existing emergencies to stall the elections. The petiti.lner was never der-ried the details of the elections alci the salre is concocted for the purpose of hting the writ ltetition. The process of election was widely circulated anrl publici zed in all the Trade Union Circles and the petitioner is also very well aware of the same. The Notification of the Election was a-lso posted in WhatsApp groups, where rhe Union and 8 SK, J wP No.92AE of2025 its Members are actively updated about activities undertaking by the respondent No.4 and the details of elections are in the knowledge of all the Members and the Office of the respondent No.4.

72. The learned Counsel for the respondent No.4 would further submit that in view of the interim orders passed by this Court on 26.O3.2O25 in I.A.No.2 of 2025, the respondent No.4 is unable to proceed with conducting of elections and the day to day functioning of the respondent No.4 is being hindered and there are no merits in the writ petition and requested to dismiss the writ petition.

13. The learned Counsel for the respondents relied on the following Judgments:

7. Pouer Grid Emplogees Union, rep. bg its Presidenf

2. RTC Telangana Mazdoor Union and others Vs., State of Telangana and otherss

3. K.V.Sridha,ran and others Vs., S.Sundara Murthg6 4 2007 SCC Online AP 1 1 13 s 2024 SCC Online TS 1936 6 2008 SCC Ontine Mad 902 --..'.r,;-red"./ 9 SK, J lL1' No 920t of 2025

14. After hearing both sides and on perusing the record, this Court is of the considered view that, the petitioner being the Member of a Respondent No.4-Trade Union, hled the instant writ petition questioning the Eiection Notilrcation No.TtrE1 104U/GS/Hyd/D.No.27 I 2025 dated

12.03.2025 issued by the respondent No.4 on the ground that the respondent No.4 without following the bye-iaws of the respondent No.4-Trade Union and without any transparency they wanted to conduct eler:tions and the same is contrary and arbitrary

15. The learned Counsel for the petitioner by rclying on the Judgments (sapra 7 to 3) stated that lire respondent No.4 has to conduct elections as per the bye-laws in view of expiry of term of present office bearers on 24.1O.2O24 and further the ofhcial respondents have to take appropriate action for conducting of elections by appointing an 10 SK, J WP No.9208 of2025 Election Officer ald without following the s€Lme, impugned election notification was issued.

16. The primary contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent No.4 is that the respondent No.4 is a not a statutory body and the dispute is between the Member ald the Trade Union and therefore the writ petition is not maintainable. If any grievance is there with regard to conducting of elections the petitioner has to approach the civil court for redressal of his grievance. without aly varid grounds the petitioner approached this Court and the same is liable to be dismissed as it is settled law that the dispute between the Members and the Trade Union cannot be decided in the instant writ petition.

17. The Judgment relied by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in B.C.Sharma and another os. M.L Bho.tta and others (stpra 1), the petitioners therein initially approached the Civil Court and later they approached the ..;:ltsr*fd ,:';rr. . - 11 SK, J vlP No.920B of2025 High Court and Supreme Court. But in the instant case, the petitioner has not filed any suit by aooroaching the Civil Court bcfore filing the instant writ petition. In view of the same, this Judgment not apply to the facts of the instant writ petition.

18. Another Judgment relied by the learned Counsei for the petitioner in Food Corporation of India Staff Union Vs. Food Corporation of India (supra 2), also not apply to the facts of the instant case. In the instant case, Clause 23 (1) the Bye-laws of the respondent No.4 clearly shows th.rt the mode of election of the ofhce bearers from the Divisionerl 1evel to the State level shall be conducted through Secrete ballot in the event of a contest. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the respondent No.4 has not lollowed clause 23 (I) is premature and cannot be taken into account. \ 12 SK, J WP No.9208 of 2a25

19. Another Judgment relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in pangam Cements Etnplogees tlnion and another Vs., Commissioner of Labour, Hgd.erabad. (s-upra 3/ also not apply to the facts of the instant case.

20. The Judgments relied on by the learned Counsel for the respondent No.4 in power Grtd Emplogees Union Vs. Power Grid Corporation (supra 4) and RTC Telangana Mazdoor Union q.nd others Vs., State of Telangana (stpra 5i squarely apply to the facts of the instant case.

21. The relevant portion in pouer Grid Emplogees Union Vs. Power Grid Corporqtion (atpra 4) is as Jollouts: "2O. Ihis is a dispute concerned uith a Trad.e [Jnion, not betueen the riual Trade (Jnions or it is not a dispute between a Trade Union and the Management. White obseruing the democratic pinciples and. also keeping in uiew the uelfare of the utorkers a.s such, the concemed Trade Union may haue to d_ecide unto itself such di.sputes. The dispute in Etestion is concerned u,tith the intemal dispute of a Trade Union ond nothing begond. 't \ 13 SK, J WP No 9208 of2o25 thereto Further, there are oll factual issues u'hich cannot be effectiuely gone into bg a utrit Court. In tht: light of the facts and circ,urnstances and olso futlher in the light of the maleial placed before this Courl, including the chrortology of euents, this Court is satisrted that the relieJ s proyed for in both the wit petitions connot be grantecl. ln fact the relief prayed for in the, latter utrit petltion, uilually becorne infntctous. In the light of the same, let the parties approach the competent Ciuil Courl to resolue their disputes in accordance utith latu. Except making this obseruation, no fufther relief can be gra.nted in theset u-t rit petitions".

22. The rebvalt portion in RTC Telangana Mazdoor Union and others Vs. State of Telangand q.nd others (xtpra 5/ is as follorvs: 'A bare: perusaL of the auerments at Para |,lo.8 of the counter afJidctuit filed on behalf of the respondent No.4 indicate,s that as per Code of Discipline, the Registrar of Ad ut Registrar of Trade [Jnion has no authoritg or poluer to d-irect the election of the off.ce bearers oJ trade union under hts ouner superuision or the supertision of hi.s nomhtee since the intro union dispute exists and the remedy oJ' the aggieued party is to approa.ch tLrc Ciuil Couft as directed by this Couft on W.P.No.24B7:) of 2O21" l4 SK, J WP No.9206 of 2O25 k..-. E''

23. The relevant portion in ff.V.Sridharan qnd others Vs., S.Sundara Moorthg (supra 6/ is as follows: "5. We, therefore hold that all the dispute relating to holding of elections of such incorporated. bodies, u_thich re nothing but piuate bodies, cannot be challenged before the utrit Court. If there are disputes betu.teen the parties ouer such election, those disputes dispules can be challenged, if so aduised, before the appropiate Ciuil Courts. Since u.te're are of the uieut that the wit petition itself is not maintainable, this Court is of the opinion that no ord_er carL be passed in the urit emption on the dispute relating to the election of such Trade [Jnion. It mag be noted_ in this connection that these piuate bod[es are not enforcing any statutory directton bg fihng such utit petitions , inasmuch in the Stote of Tamil Nadu, there is no latu relating to grant of recognition to a Trade (Jnion, nor is there any law relating to holding of election of such Trad.e [Jnions. These matters ore couered. by general latu and as such, the dtsputes in this regard should be settled by the Ciuil Court.

24. The Judgments relied on by the learned Counsel for the respondent No.4 squarely apply to the facts instant CASE, as the dispute in the instant writ petition is between the Member and the Trade Union, which is a not a ;ii:L;a#;j?Pf ... -ifirrt I5 SK, J M' Na..)208 of 2O2S statutory body. In view of the same, the petitioner has to approach the competent Civil Court for resolving his dispute with the Trade Union, but not by iiling the instant wrrl petition

25. In view of the above finding, this \\.rit petition is dismissecl as not maintainable. No order as lo costs

26. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand closcd. No order as to costs //rRUE copy/t SD/- M. OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Cz- SECTION OFFICER One fair copy to THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K SARATH (For His LordshiP's Kind Perusal) To,

1. 11 L.R. Copies. 2. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ir/inistry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi.

3. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad

4. One CC to SRI RAJA SHEKAR RAO SALVAJI, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP FOR LABOUR,High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

6. One CC to SRl. R. ANURAG, Advocate [OPUCI 7. Two CD CoPies BIV GJP w HIGH COURT DATED:0910712025 ORDER WP.No.9208 of 2025 .i i'.: li _ \, !^ \i," -::-. \ 2I u[I 2gg .So," -,- ., ,/-:/ DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ^,\ tdYu " ?N V^- dd.'