Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 341 (HP)

Varinder Khurana v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2013-04-24

RAJIV SHARMA

body2013
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. The Himachal Pradesh State Co-operative Bank Employees Union is duly registered with respondent No. 2 vide registration No. 27, dated 17.07.1962. The bye-laws of the Union are placed on record vide Annexure P/2. According to Clause 10, the Executive Committee of the Union was required to meet at least once in three months and general body once in two years or earlier, if demanded. Now, as per Annexure P/7, the Executive Committee of the Union is required to meet at least once in three months and General Body once in three years or earlier if demanded. 2. Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that no resolution was passed by the General House in its meeting held on 28.08.2010 to extend the period from two years to three years for convening the meeting of General Body. He then contended that respondent No. 5 has brought to the notice of the Managing Director of the Federation that no resolution for extension of period from two to three years was ever adopted. He further contended that the proceedings of the meeting of General House held on 22.08.2010, circulated on 03.09.2010, have been manipulated. 3. Mr. Pramod Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Lalit K. Sharma, learned counsel for respondents No. 4 and 5, have argued that the amendment in Clause 10 of the bye-laws of the Himachal Pradesh State Cooperative Bank Employees Union is strictly in accordance with law. They have also contended that the petitioner has concealed material facts from this Court. They lastly contended that the amendment has been carried out on the basis of the directions issued by this Court in CWP No. 3609 of 2010 on 30.07.2010. 4. What emerges from the facts placed on record by the parties, is that the meeting of the General Body of the Himachal Pradesh State Co-operative Bank Employees Union was held at Bhima Kali Temple Mandi, Himachal Pradesh on 21.12.2003. The proceedings of the meeting held on 21.12.2003 were circulated vide Annexure R- 1 on 6.1.2004. The following resolution was passed : "Resolution No.1: The matter was placed before the House with regard to increase the tenure of the Executive Committee from two to three years. The proceedings of the meeting held on 21.12.2003 were circulated vide Annexure R- 1 on 6.1.2004. The following resolution was passed : "Resolution No.1: The matter was placed before the House with regard to increase the tenure of the Executive Committee from two to three years. After thorough discussion and minor resentment of some members on the issue, it was resolved by the General House to increase the tenure of the Executive Committee from two to three years." Thereafter, the proceedings of meeting of General House held on 21.12.2003, were confirmed by the General House, which were held on 15.12.2006 and 14.11.2007. Petitioner himself has sent a communication to respondent No. 2 for extension of period of General Body from two to three years on 25.06.2008. A Civil Writ Petition bearing CWP No. 3609 of 2010, was filed by the Himachal Pradesh State Co-operative Bank Employees Union, which was decided by this Court on 30.07.2010. 5. The meeting of the General Body was held on 22.08.2010. The proceedings of the same were circulated on 03.09.2010. These proceedings were only signed by the President, i.e., respondent No. 4. It is evident from the proceedings that again the Union has requested to call the meeting of the General House once in three years instead of two years. Respondent No. 5 informed the Managing Director of the Federation that in fact the agenda for extension of period from two to three years was never discussed in the House. The respondent No. 2 asked the respondent No. 4 to supply the original proceedings, dated 03.09.2010. The information was supplied by respondent No. 4 vide Annexure R-11 and R-12, dated 14.02.2011 and 15.11.2011, respectively. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 has approved the amendment in Clause-10 by extending the period from two to three years. Petitioner also made a representation for the redressal of his grievance vide Annexure P/8. The same has been rejected by the respondent No. 2 on 16.10.2012. The respondent No. 2 has filed a supplementary affidavit pursuant to order, dated 11.01.2013. Thereafter, a fresh supplementary affidavit was also filed by respondent No. 2 pursuant to order, dated 05.03.2013. According to the averments contained in the latest supplementary affidavit, the representatives of the Federation-Union were heard and the facts were re-verified by the respondent No. 2. 6. The respondent No. 2 has filed a supplementary affidavit pursuant to order, dated 11.01.2013. Thereafter, a fresh supplementary affidavit was also filed by respondent No. 2 pursuant to order, dated 05.03.2013. According to the averments contained in the latest supplementary affidavit, the representatives of the Federation-Union were heard and the facts were re-verified by the respondent No. 2. 6. Petitioner has not disclosed to this Court that earlier a resolution was passed by the General House on 21.12.2003. The proceedings of this General House were confirmed in subsequent meetings of the General Body held on 15.12.2006 and 14.11.2007. As noticed above, the petitioner himself has requested the respondent No. 2 to amend the Clause 10 by extending the period of meeting of the General Body from two to three years. A litigant cannot be permitted to choose his facts. He is duty bound to place all the true and material facts before the Court. Petitioner was General Secretary when he has made a request for amendment of Clause 10 vide Annexure R-4 on 25.06.2008. The General Body has again passed a resolution seeking amendment to Clause 10 in the meeting held on 28.08.2010. It is true that the proceedings were only signed by the President, as is evident from Annexure P- 3. Later on, a resolution duly signed by respondents No. 4 and 5 was sent to respondent No. 2 vide Annexure P-6. Respondent No. 4 has informed the respondent No. 2 vide Annexures R-11 and R- 12 on 12.02.2011 and 15.11.2011 about the developments which has taken place. The respondent No. 2 has again re-verified the facts pursuant to the directions issued by this Court on 05.03.2013. The representatives of the Union have stated before the respondent No. 2 that resolution seeking amendment to Clause 10 for extending the period from two to three years was discussed in the General House. The proceedings of the General House held on 28.8.2010, cannot be termed illegal. The proceedings, dated 03.09.2010, cannot be nullified only on the ground that respondent No. 5 has stated that the matter for extension of the period of meeting of the General Body once in three years instead of two years was not discussed. He has signed the subsequent resolution, dated 03.09.2010, as per Annexure P/6. The proceedings, dated 03.09.2010, cannot be nullified only on the ground that respondent No. 5 has stated that the matter for extension of the period of meeting of the General Body once in three years instead of two years was not discussed. He has signed the subsequent resolution, dated 03.09.2010, as per Annexure P/6. Learned Additional Advocate General has also submitted at the time of hearing on 30.07.2010 that the steps have been taken by the Registrar of Trade Unions for amendment in Clause 10, as already proposed by the petitioner-Union. The amendment in Clause-10 is in conformity with the judgment passed by this Court on 30.07.2010. Petitioner has failed to substantiate how the amendment carried out in Clause-10 is illegal. The representation made by the petitioner vide Annexure P-8, has been decided by a speaking order, on 16.10.2012. In order, dated 16.10.2012, there is a reference to the judgment of this Court in CWP No. 3609 of 2010, dated 30.07.2010. 7. Accordingly, in view of the observations and analysis made herein above, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any. No costs.