ORDER 18.06.2018. Heard Mr. D. Mohanta, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Aurovinda Mohanty, learned Counsel for opposite party No.2. 2. Petitioner, who is working as Chief Controller of East-coast Railways, Khordha Road Division, Khordha, has filed this writ petition assailing order dated 19.05.2018 (Annedure-5) passed by the Registrar of Trade Unions-cum-Labour Commissioner, Odisha, Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.1) in setting aside the Election Notification dated 26.05.2017 issued by the Chief Personnel Officer, East-Coast Railways for election of Central Office bearers of East-coast Railways Sramik Union (for short Union) as well as the election held on 16.06.2017 pursuant to the said notification. The opposite party No.1, further set aside the Memorandum dated 18.08.2017 issued by the Chief Personnel Officer, East-coast Railways circulating the list of Central Office bearers of the Union and directed for fresh election as per the provisions of the existing Bye-law of the Union. 3. In course of argument, Mr. Mohanta, drew attention of this Court to order dated 19.07.2016 passed in W.P,. (C) No.107 of 2016, whereas it was directed as follows : “In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the election of the present opposite party No.5 as President of East- Coast Railways Shramik Union is not in consonance with the existing Bye-Laws and as such the election held on 27th and 28th of August, 2015 is invalid and not sustainable in law. Hence, this Court while quashing the impugned memorandum dated 03.9.2015 under Annexure-9 directs opposite party No.1 to take consequential steps as directed by the Court in its order dated 29.8.2011 in W.P. (C) No.15642 of 2011.” The writ petition along with Misc.Case is accordingly disposed of.” 4. East-coast Railways Shramik Union had filed W.P. (C) No.15642 of 2011 seeking for issuance of a writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 23.05.2011 and to uphold the amended Bye-laws of the Union, i.e., regarding clause – 5 (a) (i) of the Bye-laws and further sought for issuance of a direction to the opposite parties therein to uphold the amended Bye-laws and to continue the petitioner-2, namely, Ch. Gandhi, in his official capacity as General Secretary of petitioner No.1-Union.This Court after an elaborate discussions, dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 29.08l.2011 said order of this Court dated 29.08.2011 was assailed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.27027 of 2011, which came to be disposed of vide order dated 15.12.2015 with a finding that in view of the intervening developments, the SLP has been rendered infructuous. However, liberty was granted to the parties to pursue any surviving grievance in appropriate proceedings. After disposal of the SLP, W.P:.(C) No.107 of 2016 was filled by the Union in which the aforesaid direction was issued. The said order was the subject matter of challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.25177 of 2016, which was disposed of vide order dated 05.09.2016 directing the petitioner to approach the High Court by way of Review Petition, which would be decided on its own merit. Accordingly, RVWPET No.226 of 2016 was filed, which was disposed of vide order dated 07.11.2016 with a direction to opposite party No.1 to take consequential steps pursuant to the direction of this Court in W.P. (C) No.15642 of 2011.Accordingly, the opposite party No.1, vide its order dated 18.03.2017 held that the election held in 2011 and 2013 is invalid and directed to conduct fresh election. Accordingly, election notification dated 26.05.2017 was issued, which was challenged in Civil Suit, i.e. CS No.789 of 2017 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Bhubaneswar and in IA No.1 of 2017, (arising out of the suit), learned Civil Judge vide order dated 05.06.2017 directed that the election process would continue, but the result shall not be declared. The said Election notification was also challenged before this Court in W.P. (C) lNo.10535 of 2017, which was dismissed in view of pendency of the Civil Suit. In between, several other writ petitioners were filed, which were disposed of in the line of order passed in W.P.(C) No.107 of 2016.Subsequently, vide order dated 03.08.2017, the said IA No.1 of 2017 was dismissed. However, one U. Dharma Raju (O.P. No.3) filed W.P. (C) No.19015 of 2017 praying inter alia to quash the Election notification dated 26.05l.2017 and result of such election dated 18.08.2017, as well. The said writ petition was disposed on 19.12.2017 with the following direction :- “11. However, one U. Dharma Raju (O.P. No.3) filed W.P. (C) No.19015 of 2017 praying inter alia to quash the Election notification dated 26.05l.2017 and result of such election dated 18.08.2017, as well. The said writ petition was disposed on 19.12.2017 with the following direction :- “11. Taking into consideration the submission of learned Counsel for the parties and the fact that election of Central Office Bearers of the East Coast Railway Shramik Union could not be conducted as per the provisions of the existing Bye-law and as it requires factual adjudication by the competent authority, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Labour Commissioner-opposite party No.3 to examine the matter and find out as to whether election of Central Office Bearers has been conducted on 26.05.2017 by the Chief Personnel Officer-opposite party No.2 in terms of the approved Bye-law or not after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and if he holds in the negative, fresh election of Central Office Bearers of the East Coast Railway Shramik Union shall be held as per the existing Bye-law. Parties are directed to appear before opposite party No.3 on or before 02.01.2018 and produce the relevant documents in support of their case on which date he shall fix a date of hearing.” 5. Accordingly, the opposite party No.1 conducted the hearing of the case giving opportunity to the parties concerned. Taking into consideration the rival contentions of the parties, opposite party No.1 framed the following issues : “I. What is the meaning of consequential steps as per order dt. 19.7.2016 passed by the Hon’ble High Court in W.P. (C) No.107/16 and order dt. 29.8.2011 in W.P. (C) No.15642/2011, which speaks that election be held for central office bearers of East Coast Railway Shramik Union ? II. Whether the management is authorized to issue election notification or to conduct election of the central office bearers of the Union? III. Whether the election notification issued by the management is in compliance of the Bye-Laws of the Union ? IV. Whether the election of central office bearers of the Union has been conducted in the General Body Meeting of the Union in compliance to Rule 5 (b) (i) & (ii) and Rule 8 (b) of the Bye-law.?” 6. III. Whether the election notification issued by the management is in compliance of the Bye-Laws of the Union ? IV. Whether the election of central office bearers of the Union has been conducted in the General Body Meeting of the Union in compliance to Rule 5 (b) (i) & (ii) and Rule 8 (b) of the Bye-law.?” 6. After taking into consideration the relevant provisions of the Bye-law, the opposite party No.1 held that the Management of East-coast Railways had no jurisdiction to interfere with the election process of the Union. It has been further held that in view of Rule 5 (b) (i) & (ii), the election itself appears to be invalid. It is further held that there was neither any annual general body meeting held nor there was any quorum on 16.06.2017 for election of Central Office bearers of the Union. Accordingly, the impugned order under Annexure-5 has been passed. 7. Mr. Mohanta, learned Counsel for the petitioner although vehemently contended that opposite party No.1 has not complied with the direction in W.P.(C) No.107 of 2016 so also the direction made in W.P. (C) No.19015 of 2017, he could not point out any defect in the impugned order, which would warrant interference of this Court. 8. We have perused the impugned order and relevant provisions of Bye-law of the Union. On perusal of different provisions of Bye-law, it is apparent that the election of the office bearers of the Union is an internal affairs of the Union itself and the Management (petitioner) is not empowered to interfere with the election process of the Union. Thus, the election notification dated 26.05.2017 issued by Chief Personnel Officer, East-coast Railways is without jurisdiction. It further appears that Rule 6 (b) (i) and (ii) of the Bye-law have not been followed while conducting the election. Moreover, the impugned order under Annexure-5 has been passed pursuant to direction of this Court. The opposite party No.1 has passed the order after elaborate discussions of facts and provisions of Bye-law of the Union. 9. We are therefore of the firm opinion that opposite party No.1 has rightly taken the decision to set aside the election notification and consequential election held in pursuance thereof. 10. The writ petition, therefore, being devoid of any merit, stands dismissed. Petition dismissed.