JUDGMENT : B. Veerappa, J. 1. These two appeals are filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff against the common judgment and decree dated 14.2.2012, made in R.A. No. 66/12 and R.A. No. 58/2011 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Dn), Koppal, setting aside the judgment and decree dated 17.10.2011 made in O.S. No. 161/2009 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Dn), Koppal, decreeing the suit in-part. 2. The appellant/plaintiff filed suit in O.S. No. 161/09 for the relief of declaration to declare that the election proceedings published by defendant No. 2 in respect of defendant No. 1 Union in Form-A dated 10.09.09 are null and void and to quash the same and to declare that defendant No. 3 is not elected as President of defendant No. 1-Umon under due process of law and to further grant perpetual injunction restraining defendant No. 3 from acting as President of the Defendant No. 1. 3. It is contended that the plaintiff is a Public Limited Company having its factory at Bevinahalli of Hitnal village of Koppal Taluk and dealing with manufacture, production and sale of sale of pig iron and foundry grade castings and there are more than 800 workers in the said unit. Defendant No. 1 is the registered Union of workers of the company and defendant No. 2 was appointed as the Returning Officer of the Union to conduct the election proceedings of the union and defendant No. 3 is alleged to have been declared as elected President of the 1st defendant union. 4. The grievance of the plaintiff-Company is that though the defendant No. 3 who is not an employee of plaintiff Company nor he is Honorary member of the union, is not eligible to contest the election or represent as President of defendant No. 1 Union and even after receipt of objections, the defendant No. 2-Returnmg Officer has not at all considered the same and declared defendant No. 3 as only candidate for the post of President and declared him elected as such, in utter violation of mandatory provisions of Karnataka Trade Union's Elections (Model) Rule, 1953. 5. It is contended that defendant No. 1-Umon is having approved byelaws regarding appointment to the post of office bearers. The election to the union has to be conducted as per the Karnataka Trade Unions Elections (Model) Rules. 5. It is contended that defendant No. 1-Umon is having approved byelaws regarding appointment to the post of office bearers. The election to the union has to be conducted as per the Karnataka Trade Unions Elections (Model) Rules. It is claimed that as per rule 5 of the Karnataka Trade Union's Election (Model Rule), 1953, the defendant No. 2 shall prepare the voters list and shall publish by pasting it on the Notice Board of the Union and by sending it to the employer concerned for publishing the same on the notice board of the factory or other industrial concern. It is admitted that 2nd defendant has published calendar of events on 11.9.2009 and invited objections for the voters list published in the union. According to the plaintiff defendant No. 2 has not followed the prescribed procedure and has not furnished copy of the voters list to the employer. Therefore, the plaintiff filed objections on 19.9.2009 to the voters list published for conducting election to the office bearers of 1st defendant Union opposing inclusion of name of 3rd defendant in the said list on the ground that 3rd defendant is not a workman of the Company. It is pleaded that defendant No. 2 has not considered the objections submitted by the plaintiff and unanimously declared defendant No. 3 elected as President of the defendant-1/Union. According to the plaintiff, the procedure followed by the 2nd defendant in conducting election is illegal and null and void. Therefore, the plaintiff sought for declaration that election proceedings published by the 2nd defendant in respect of defendant-1 union on 10.9.2009 are null and void and defendant No. 3 is not the elected President of defendant No. 1 Union under due process of law and also sought for injunction restraining defendant No. 33 from acting as President of the defendant No. 1 union, etc. 6. The defendant No. 1 filed written statement and defendant No. 3 filed Memo adopting the written statement filed by defendant No. 1. It is admitted that defendant No. 1-union is workmen of plaintiff-company and also admitted that defendant No. 2 published calendar of events for the election and voters list on 11.9.2009 and called for objections. Defendants have denied the fact that defendant No. 2 has not followed Model Rules in the election procedure. It is admitted that defendant No. 1-union is workmen of plaintiff-company and also admitted that defendant No. 2 published calendar of events for the election and voters list on 11.9.2009 and called for objections. Defendants have denied the fact that defendant No. 2 has not followed Model Rules in the election procedure. It is specifically contended that, the voters list of the workmen was exhibited in the notice board on 11.9.09 and pleaded that defendant No. 3 is the honorary member of the union and he was appointed as per article 5 of byelaws of the union. Therefore, he is eligible to contest the election and for appointment as a president of the said union. The objection filed by the plaintiff company was time barred and hence it was rejected by defendant No. 2 and defendant No. 3 was unanimously elected as president of the union. Therefore, there is no cause of action to the suit and therefore sought for dismissal of the suit. 7. Defendant No. 2 filed his written statement contending that the civil court has no jurisdiction to try the suit and contended that the objection was filed by plaintiff company to the voters list on 22.9.2009 and not on 19.9.2009 as claimed in the plaint. It is further stated that defendant No. 1 union has passed a resolution on 27.8.2009 to conduct the election and on 8.9.2009 and a letter was sent to the plaintiff-company to provide accommodation in the factory premises to conduct the election. But the plaintiff company did not respondent to the request. The calendar of events and copy of the voters list has been supplied to the plaintiff but they have not filed objection in time. The defendant No. 2 contended that the election proceedings were held as per the rules and regulations in accordance with law. Therefore sought for dismissal of the suit. 8. Based on the pleadings the trial court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff company proves election proceedings published by defendant No. 2 in respect of defendant No. 1 Union dated 10.9.2009 is null and void? 2. Whether the plaintiff company proves defendant No. 3 is not the elected President of defendant No. 1 Union through due process of law? 3. Whether defendant No. 1 & 3 proves this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit? 4. 2. Whether the plaintiff company proves defendant No. 3 is not the elected President of defendant No. 1 Union through due process of law? 3. Whether defendant No. 1 & 3 proves this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claimed reliefs? 5. What order or decree? 9. In order to establish plaintiffs case, the Deputy General Manager of the plaintiff company was examined as PW. 1 and produced documents as Ex. P. 1 to P. 3. Defendant No. 1 was examined as D.W. 1 and produced documents as Ex. D. 1 to D. 11. Defendant No. 2 was examined as D.W. 2 and produced documents as Ex. D. 12 to D. 45. Defendant No. 3 was examined as DW. 3 and he has not produced any documents. 10. The trial Court after considering the entire material on record, recorded a finding that the plaintiff has proved the Issue No. 1 in part and negated the issue in-part and held that the plaintiff company has proved that defendant No. 3 is not the elected President of defendant No. 1 union through due process of law and ultimately decreed the suit in-part holding that the plaintiff company has not challenged the election in respect of other office bearers of the union. 11. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree the plaintiff filed R.A. No. 58/2011 so far as in not declaring the election proceedings published by defendant No. 1 in respect of defendant No. 1 union in Form-A dated 10.9.09 as null and void. Defendant No. 3 filed appeal in R.A. No. 66/2011 being aggrieved by the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 161/09 dated 17.10.2011 in declaring that defendant No. 3 is not the legally elected President of defendant No. 1 union and restraining him to act as President of the said Union. The appellate court, after considering the byelaws of the Union, dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff-Company and allowed the appeal filed by defendant No. 3, thereby the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 17.10.2011 is set aside and consequently dismissed the entire suit with liberty to defendant No. 1 union conduct election to select the executive body to the union as per law. 12. Against the said judgment and decree of the courts below the present appeals are filed. 13. 12. Against the said judgment and decree of the courts below the present appeals are filed. 13. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties to the lis. 14. Sri. Chandrashekar P. Patil, learned Counsel for the plaintiff has contended that, dismissal of the suit of plaintiff by the lower appellate court is against Rule 5 of Karnataka Trade Union Election (Model) Rules, 1953, and also contended that defendant No. 3 is not a member of the plaintiff-company. Therefore, election of defendant No. 3 is contrary to the byelaws and contrary to the provisions of the Karnataka Trade Union Election (Model) Rules, 1953. Therefore, he sought to set aside the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court as well as the trial court in not granting decree of declaration declaring that the election held on 10.9.2009 is null and void. 15. Per contra, Sri. S.S. Yadrami, learned Counsel for respondent-1 has sought to justify the impugned judgment and decree of the courts below and contended that the 1st respondent-union has followed the procedure as laid down in the rules and the election held is in accordance with law. Accordingly, he sought to dismiss the appeal. 16. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties to the lis and perused the entire material on record. 17. The provisions of Rule 3(1) and (2) of Karnataka Trade Unions Election (Model) Rules, 1953, reads as follows: "3. (1) The Members of the Executive Committee, other than the office-bearers shall consist of persons representing several Departments in the industry or such group of Departments as may designated by the Returning Officer and shall be elected by members on such department or group of departments as the case may be at or on such date or dates immediately preceding the annual meeting of the General Body of members as may be fixed and notified by the Returning Officer. (2) The Members of the Executive Committee and the office-bearers shall be elected once in two years at the annual meeting of the General Body of the members." 18. Admittedly, in the present case, election was held on 10.09.2009 and on the same day defendant No. 3 was declared elected as President of the Union and his term in terms of Rule 3(2) would be only for two years from the date of election. Admittedly, in the present case, election was held on 10.09.2009 and on the same day defendant No. 3 was declared elected as President of the Union and his term in terms of Rule 3(2) would be only for two years from the date of election. The trial court has not declared that the election held on 10.09.2009 was null and void as prayed for and held that the plaintiff failed to prove that defendant No. 1 has not the followed the procedure contemplated under the Rules. However, the trial court restrained defendant No. 3 to act as President of the defendant No. 1 Union by order dated 17.10.2011 and the lower appellate court has modified the decree of the trial court and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff reserving liberty to the defendant No. 1 Union to conduct election to select the executive body as per law. As on the date of judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court on 14.2.2012 the term of office of executive body of the Union in terms of Rule 3(2) of the Karnataka Trade Union Election (Model) Rules, 1953, was expired long back. Considering the said provisions and the oral and documentary evidence on record and relying upon the provisions of Rules 5 and 6 of Karnataka Trade Union Election (Model) Rules, 1953, the appellate court held that, as per Rule 6(2) of the Rules, the employer is also having an opportunity to file objections to the voters' list. In the present case on hand, defendant No. 2 has not placed any documentary evidence to show that he has sent or furnished copy of voters list to the plaintiff company. 19. D.W. 2 during his cross-examination has specifically admitted, except the testimony of DW. 1 there is no other proof regarding copy of voters list having been furnished to the plaintiff company. Even DW. 1 in his evidence has deposed that he has handed over the copy of the voters list to the plaintiff company. But, he has not obtained any endorsement from the plaintiff company. As per his contention, the Vice President of the Company Sri B. Satish Shetty had informed him there is no necessity to give written endorsement and also recorded a finding that during election proceedings defendant No. 2 had no occasion to enter the premises of plaintiff factory as has been admitted in his evidence. As per his contention, the Vice President of the Company Sri B. Satish Shetty had informed him there is no necessity to give written endorsement and also recorded a finding that during election proceedings defendant No. 2 had no occasion to enter the premises of plaintiff factory as has been admitted in his evidence. Therefore, the trial court held that defendant No. 2 has not followed the procedure contemplated under Rules 5 and 6 of the election Rules. He also recorded a finding that Ex. D. 13 is the Calendar of Events published by defendant No. 2 in connection with the election of the Union. As per the said document, he has given opportunity to file objection to the voters list on 12.09.2009 and 14.09.2009 in between 3.00 to 4.30 p.m. In Ex. D. 1 document, there is reference that the plaintiff company has forwarded objection to the voters list on 19.9.09 to defendant No. 2. But it appears defendant No. 2 has received the said objection on 22.02.2009 and he has passed an order rejecting the objection as time barred. In the absence of cogent and satisfactory evidence that defendant No. 2 has furnished copy of voters list to the plaintiff company, the objection submitted by the plaintiff company cannot be rejected. 20. Ex. D. 11 byelaw of defendant No. 1 Union reads as follows: As per Rules 4 and 5 of the byelaw there is option to appoint two honorary members of the said Union. In the case on hand, even if it is presumed that defendant No. 3 is a honorary member, there is no specific provision in the byelaw to say that such members can contest the election to the post of President or any other office bearer. Ex. D. 11- byelaw of the Union has been formed to prevent the problems faced by the workman. As per the byelaw, unless any workman is a member of the Union he is not eligible to become office bearer. In the result, from the evidence on record, the documentary as well as oral, permitting defendant No. 3 to contest to the post of President is null and void. As per the byelaw, unless any workman is a member of the Union he is not eligible to become office bearer. In the result, from the evidence on record, the documentary as well as oral, permitting defendant No. 3 to contest to the post of President is null and void. The trial court also recorded a finding that under Section 18 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926, no suit or other legal proceedings shall be maintainable in any civil court against any registered trade union or any office bearer or member thereof in respect of any act done in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute to which a member of the Trade Union is party, on the ground only that such act induces some other persons to break a contract of employment, or that it is in interference with the trade, business or employment of some other person or with the right of some other persons to dispose of his capital or of his labour as he wills. 21. Considering Section 2(g) of the Act, 1926 defines what is a trade dispute. As per section 9 of Code of Civil Procedure the court shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature. As per Rule 42 of the Karnataka Trade Unions Election (Model) Rules, 1953, the trial court has held that the dispute between the parties is not regarding election. The plaintiff company has only objection on conferring membership to defendant No. 3 in the Union and he is acting as elected president. The said aspect shall be decided by the civil court and whether defendant No. 3 is competent to act as President of the Union or he can contest the election comes within the exclusive jurisdiction of civil court. Therefore, the trial court held that the present suit filed by the plaintiff before the civil court is maintainable. Ultimately, suit of plaintiff is partly declared declaring that defendant No. 3 is not the elected president of the Union under due process of law and restrained defendant No. 3 from acting as president of defendant No. 1 Union. 22. Therefore, the trial court held that the present suit filed by the plaintiff before the civil court is maintainable. Ultimately, suit of plaintiff is partly declared declaring that defendant No. 3 is not the elected president of the Union under due process of law and restrained defendant No. 3 from acting as president of defendant No. 1 Union. 22. On reconsideration of the entire material on record, the lower appellate considering Rule 42 of the Rules has answered Issue No. 3 with regard to jurisdiction of the court affirmatively holding that the trial court has jurisdiction on the ground that the dispute is not with regard to the election and the plaintiff company has only objection on conferring membership of defendant No. 3 in the union and he has been elected as president. The words used in Rule 42 that "any question arising out of, in connection with or incidental to election at any stage", makes it clear that after the publication of calendar of events, any question with regard to the election process is in connection with and incidental to the election. In view of Rule 42 the said questions shall be referred to a committee consisting of 6 persons with the Assistant Commissioner of the Labour as Chairman. The trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case as the problem of the plaintiff involved is in connection with the election and admittedly the election is held on 30.11.2009 and the period of elected body shall be for two years and the same has been completed long back, the appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and set aside the judgment and decree dated 17.10.2011. Consequently dismissed the suit with liberty to first defendant to conduct the election to select the executive body to the union as per law. 23. The lower appellate court based on the provisions of Rule 42 of the Karnataka Trade Unions Elections (Model) Rules, has held that the election conducted on 10.10.2009 the term fixed thereon has been completed long back and ultimately dismissed the suit directing the 1st defendant Union to proceed with the election and select the Executive body to the union in terms of the byelaw and in terms of the Karnataka Trade Unions Elections (Model) Rules. The same is in accordance with law. The same is in accordance with law. The claim of the plaintiff has become academic as the term of office itself expired long back in terms of Rule 3(2) of the Karnataka Trade Unions Elections (Model) Rules. Therefore, the impugned judgment & decree of the appellate Court is in accordance with law. 24. The appellant in both the appeals has not made out any ground to interfere with the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court directing the first defendant to proceed with the election process in terms of the byelaw and in terms of Karnataka Trade Unions Elections (Model) Rules. No substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed. However, it is always open for the 1st respondent Union to conduct the elections for the Office bearers of the Executive Committee and select the executive body of the respondent No. 1 Union in terms of byelaw and in terms of Karnataka Trade Unions Elections (Model) Rules, in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, if not already held. Ordered accordingly.