JUDGMENT RAVI S. DHAVAN 1. This writ petition is basically a matter which relates to enter rivalry trade union dispute. The trade union is All India Telegraph Traffic Ministerial Employees' Union, U. P. Circle. There is an All India Employees' Union also known as the All India Telegraph Traffic Ministerial Employees' Union of India. The organisation bifurcates into circles corresponding to the States of the nation, thereafter divisions and local branches. All these are set up within the department of Tele Communications particularly Telegraph. At the circle level of the union there has been a tussle in a long drawn litigation, on who shall manage the union at this circle level. One fanction with the Secretary at the circle level is Amar Jeet Singh Bishan, the other representation is claimed by one Syed Abad Hussain. 2. The issue came before the High Court by a writ petition challenging the order of the Department of Tele Communications, from the office of the General Manager, Tele-communications, Uttar Pradesh Circle, Lucknow dated 7-11-1991 by which recognition was given to the union at the circle level whose Secretary is one Syed Abad Hussain otherwise arrayed as respondent no 4. On record as was presented to the court it was represented that the Secretary of the Union at the circle level, as a consequence of the last elections which were held was Amar Jeet Singh Bishan and the President one B. L. Gautam the elections, it was contended in the writ petition, were held in December, 1987. Further, the court was shown the Constitution of the All India Telegraph Traffic Ministerial Employees' Union, registered under the Trade Union Act, 1926, to suggest a prima facie case on behalf of the petitioner that the term of the union at the circle level, by virtue of clause 23 has not come to an end until December 1991, an aspect noticed in the interim order of the court dated November, 20, 1991 and thus any arrangement with the Central Government, has made though its department of Tele-communications, is an attempt to recognise the union other than of the Union whose Secretary is Amar Jeet Singh Bishan, is irregular and ultra vires of the Constitution of All India Telegraph Traffic Ministerial Employees' Union. 3. 3. As on record, as was presented, at the time of considering the admission of the writ petition there appeared to be a prima facie case, thus an interim order was issued permitting the conduct of the conference to be held as scheduled to be conducted by the union at the circle level by Amar Jeet Singh Bishan, claiming to be the Secretary, on 22 and 23 November, 1991. 4. It appears that an attempt to arrange a conference on these dates, as mentioned in the interim order was frustrated, and rightly so. Now, as a return to the writ petition has been filed by answering it, by those likely to be affected, the record has been made available by the counter affidavit of Syed Abad Hussain and the original record as produced by the respondents, i.e. Union of India through the Secretary, Department of Tele-communication, Ministry of Communications, New Delhi, Chief General Manager, Tele Communications U. P. Circle, Lucknow and the Assistant Director, Tele-Communications Personnel, U. P. Circle, Lucknow, respondents nos 1, 2 and 3. 5. The picture after the record has been seen by the court on a writ of certiorari, is otherwise than was presented by the petitioner. Even the history of the long drawn litigations which had enveloped the Union at the circle level was not given in the petition but the counter affidavit of respondent no. 4 has highlighted the malaise which has plagued the Union at the circle level with the various litigations pending at the civil courts at Kanpur and Lucknow and the writ petitions which were filed at the Allahabad High Court and its circuit Bench at Lucknow. Parties are still as loggerheads. In between, one of the litigations pending at the civil court has seen a final decree, through exparte What this court has not appreciated is that the petitioner did not faithfully disclose the record that there is an exparte decree to which the Union of India was a party and the cause and effect in issuing the directions in the letter dated 7-11-1991 has now been connected. Unless the entire record was before the court the perspective did not emerge clearly. Unless the entire record was before the court the perspective did not emerge clearly. The directions of the letter of the Union of India dated 7-11-1991 which the petitioner desires the court to quash, as it recognises respondent no 4 as Secretary of the union at the circle level, cannot be seen in isolation. The letter refers to the communication dated November 1, 1991 Thus the context must be seen in entirety as are contained in the communication of the Government of India, Ministry of Communication, New Delhi. This letter of the Government of India draws the attention of the Chief General Manager, U. P., Tele-communications Circle, Lucknow the litigations which were pending at the Court of the IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur in Civil suit no. 1756 of 1987. All India Telegraph Traffic Ministerial Employee's Union, Lucknow, Circle Office, Lucknow v. Union of India, Ministry of Tele-Communications Circle Secretary and others. 6. The court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate gave a judgment, to the effect that action brought into court as a suit was decreed with directions to the All India Telegraph Traffic Magisterial Employees' Union to grant recognition on trade union facilities to its circle unit and further declared that the Central Body had no right to take away the rights at the circle leave of the Union of which Syed Abad Hussain is Secretary. The judgment became a decree. Notwithstanding that it was exparte, as long as it stands, it is difficult for the Union of India to ignore this decree. Initially the case of the petitioner was that they were unaware of the proceedings of the suit nor are aware of the judgment and decree in suit no. 1756 of 1987 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur. A perusal of the original records of the Union of India reveals that the very person on whose behalf the writ petition has been filed, and has otherwise sworn the rejoinder affidavit, Amar Jeet Singh Bishan, wrote to Shri J. K. Chabra. Deputy Director General (SR.) Department of Tele Communications, Government of India, New Delhi on 19th July, 1991. A perusal of the original records of the Union of India reveals that the very person on whose behalf the writ petition has been filed, and has otherwise sworn the rejoinder affidavit, Amar Jeet Singh Bishan, wrote to Shri J. K. Chabra. Deputy Director General (SR.) Department of Tele Communications, Government of India, New Delhi on 19th July, 1991. In this letter he said, "regarding court case pertaining to this union " In his letter Amar Jeet Singh Bishan refers to proceedings which were filed in courts whether civil courts or at the High Court and further notices the judgment and decree in suit no 1756 of 1987 He comments on this exparte judgment and decree, that, firstly they do not bind him and, secondly, it is one which cannot be enforced. 7. Amar Jeet Singh Bishan may say whatever to the Deputy Director General, Department of Tele-Communications but once he' was in court in a writ petition before the High Court, he could not pretend that he was unaware of the existence of the judgment and decree dated March 27, 1991, in suit no. 1756 of 1987. How relevant the exparte judgment1 and decree may be for AMAR Jeet Singh Bishan, is a matter for his comprehension but the fact that he was aware of it much before filing of the present writ petition is a factor relevant in exercise of jurisdiction in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India No amount of legal polemics can aid the petitioner that the exparte judgment and decree does not bind him as it was his duty to disclose to the court that there was a judgment and decree of which he is aware and then come with submissions legally or otherwise on what may be the effect of the said judgment and decree. Inter-rival trade union disputes are after all localised politics and are not to be taken such a limit that orders are obtained from a court unfairly and by withholding information. In the present case this court is of the view that the court was misled in having passed an ad interim order without being told of the entire record, which has been made available in the counter affidavit of respondent no 4 and the original brought into court by the Union of India. 8. In the present case this court is of the view that the court was misled in having passed an ad interim order without being told of the entire record, which has been made available in the counter affidavit of respondent no 4 and the original brought into court by the Union of India. 8. The cause for which the Government of India issued its letter dated 7-11-1991 has been explained logically. The basis was that the Government was facing a decree of a court of competent jurisdiction and unless it was varied it could not be ignored. The Government of India accepted the decision in civil suit no. 1756 of 1987 dated March 27, 1991 as one of a court of competent jurisdiction. Thus, the union at the circle level, of which Syed Abad Hussain was the secretary, cannot be denied its facility. This implies that this union, with Syed Abad Hussain as its Secretary, be given its due recognition to continue his trade union functions in accordance with law. The union at the circle level of which Amar Jeet Singh Bishan is the Secretary, has impliedly been unsuited, in the context of suit no. 1756 of 1987. The issue simply descends to this/that there was a vie for power on who will conduct the election at the circle level Amar Jeet Singh Bishan or Syed Abad Hussain. Upon the entire story being told to the court, there is no reason for this court to pass an order the effect of which would be that the decree in suit no. 1756 of 1987 is embarassed or comprised. It was in appropriate of the petitioner on being conscious of the decree, to have presented a state of affairs as if he did not know of it at the time when he filed the writ petition. Even beyond this the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court at its circuit Bench at Lucknow. The petition was dismissed in limine. The Bench before which it was presented in its order of February 17. 1989 declared that regard being had to the circumstances that the dispute between the parties was pending before the Civil Court, the Civil Court was the appropriate forum to take a decision on the dispute, of the nature upon which, the petitioner was making a complaint. The Bench before which it was presented in its order of February 17. 1989 declared that regard being had to the circumstances that the dispute between the parties was pending before the Civil Court, the Civil Court was the appropriate forum to take a decision on the dispute, of the nature upon which, the petitioner was making a complaint. The High Court while dismissing the petition further observed that it was for the petitioner to get impleaded in the suit which may be pending. The order does not say which suit, but it is not that the petitioner was not aware of the suit that was pending at Kanpur. On this, it is contended that the reference is to another suit. Notwithstanding that the reference is to another suit, if there were litigations pending either filed by the petitioner or against the petitioner and the petitioner was aware of it, this should have been disclosed in the writ petition itself. This leads to another aspect that the number of litigations which have been pending in rivalry for power to manage the union at the circle level, is against the very concept of trade unionism in principle. If trade union leaders will fight amongst themselves and get drawn into a quagmire of litigation, then the fundamental of a purposeful dialogue in the interest of administration, is defeated. The issues which the petitioner union raises in the present petition, if they were to continue, would effect the efficiency of public utility services which is the prime purpose for which employees arc part of a set up of the State in lending their services for public benefit and effective telecommunication system. 9. The time has come that the petitioner claiming representation through its Secretary Amar Jeet Singh Bishan accepts the decision of the civil court in suit no 1756 of 1987 as it is too late in the day to pretend that the group led by Amar Jeet Singh Bishan was not aware of the judgment and decree, as the ultimate result of the exparte judgment and decree is that Syed Abad Hussain is the Secretary of the Circle and has been put under an obligation to arrange for a conference, in effect an election. He was under a time bound schedule to do so within three months from November 7, 1991. He was under a time bound schedule to do so within three months from November 7, 1991. The directions of the Union of India, Annexure 2' to the counter affidavit which was omitted from the record of the writ petition is to be carried through by implementing it. 10. Having regard to regulations which govern the All India Telegraph Traffic Ministerial Employee's union the election or conference is to be called two years after the last election in December, 1989 December of the year 1991 has only a few days left so there is no office which Syed Abad Hussain will held except for the purpose of arranging for an election or a conference. For conducting an election some one has to arrange for it, but under sanction of law. The group led by Amar Jeet Singh Bishan cannot as the judgment and decree in suit no. 1756 of 1987, stands in their way. If this matter sees any further litigation, it will tantamount to withholding the election that will negate the very purpose for which the All India Telegraph Traffic Ministerial Employees' Union has been constituted. Thus, all litigations at the circle level on inter rivalry for control must cease. If the Constitution of the All India Telegraph Traffic Ministerial Employee's Union were to be taken into account, and it cannot be ignored, the conference for the purpose of elections at circle level must be held as soon as possible, as directed by the Union of India in the communication dated 7-11-1991. 11. Thus regard being had to all the circumstances there is no cause upon which this court can invoke a writ of certiorari to quash the directions of the Union of India dated 7-11-1991 as in any case a writ of certiorari having been issued and the entire record having been seen there can be no issue to stall the elections at the circle level of All India Telegraph Traffic Ministerial Employees' Union of India, because one group would like to retain the power to control the union. 12. The court expresses its displeasure at the group which has filed this writ petition for not having placed facts faithfully and equity is not with the petitioner's group when it suppressed material facts. Upon appraising the record, otherwise kept away from the court, the writ petition based on incomplete facts is devoid of merits. 12. The court expresses its displeasure at the group which has filed this writ petition for not having placed facts faithfully and equity is not with the petitioner's group when it suppressed material facts. Upon appraising the record, otherwise kept away from the court, the writ petition based on incomplete facts is devoid of merits. The interim order dated 20-11-1991 is discharged. The writ petition is dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed.