Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1024 (MAD)

T. Baskaran v. Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-ope

2021-03-22

C.SARAVANAN

body2021
JUDGMENT : 1. By this common order, all the two Original Applications and two Applications are being disposed. 2. Since the Original Applications and Applications were filed by the plaintiffs and the defendants in C.S.No.381 of 2020 respectively, for the sake of clarity and convenience, the ranks of the parties is arrayed as plaintiffs and the defendants. 3. O.A.Nos.712 and 713 of 2020 were filed for injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the affairs of the plaintiff. By an ad-interim order dated 16.12.2020, the defendants were restrained from interfering with the office and the functioning of the first plaintiff Union. 4. Under these circumstances, defendants have filed Application Nos.15 and 16 of 2021 to vacate the ad-interim order dated 16.12.2020 granted by the court in O.A.Nos.712 and 713 of 2020. 5. These Original Applications and Applications were taken up for hearing and finally heard on 08.02.2021. I have heard Mr.V.Prakash the learned Senior Counsel for M/s.Gautam S.Ram appearing for the plaintiffs and Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, the learned counsel for M/s.Row and Reddy appearing for the first to third and sixth respondents and Mr.L.P.Shanmugasundaram, the learned counsel for the fourth and fifth respondents. 6. The above suit has been filed by the plaintiffs for a declaration to declare notice issued by the third defendant dated 26.02.2020 calling for a General Body Meeting of the first plaintiff Union on 04.03.2020 as illegal, void and ultra vires the provisions of the Bye-laws of the first plaintiff Union as also the decision and resolution taken in the said meeting including the purported election of the office bearers and affiliation with All India Bank Officers Association (AIBOA) and for consequential permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the functioning of the duly elected office bearers of the first plaintiff Union elected on 03.03.2020 in particular from continuing to interfere with the operating of the bank accounts with the fourth defendant bank and carrying out their various functions. 7. The plaintiffs have also prayed for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from functioning from the premises of the first plaintiff Union allotted by the fourth defendant bank or from in any manner giving effect to any decision or resolution passed in the illegal gathering of the officers on 04.03.2020 at the behest of the third defendant. 8. 7. The plaintiffs have also prayed for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from functioning from the premises of the first plaintiff Union allotted by the fourth defendant bank or from in any manner giving effect to any decision or resolution passed in the illegal gathering of the officers on 04.03.2020 at the behest of the third defendant. 8. The case of the plaintiffs is that the third defendant an office bearer of All India Bank Officers Association interfered with the internal affairs of the first plaintiff Union with the help of a few disgruntled members of the Association and attempted to hijack the first plaintiff and convened a meeting of the members of the first plaintiff on 29.01.2020 and had circulated a notice dated 13.01.2020 by misguiding and causing confusion among the members of the first plaintiff Union. 9. However, this was successfully thwarted by the office bearers of the first plaintiff. However, the third respondent once again persisted and issued another notice dated 26.02.2020 and had proposed a meeting to be held on 04.03.2020 for electing the office bearers of the first plaintiff and for any other matter with the permission of the Chairman. 10. On 03.03.2020, that is one day prior to the meeting called by the third defendant, a meeting of the first plaintiff was convened by issuing notice dated 02.03.2013 by the outgoing office bearers of the first plaintiff and new office bearers / Executive Committee members were elected / appointed and the Bye-laws were amended and the first plaintiff decided to disaffiliate itself from the All India Bank Officers Association of which the third defendant was the General Secretary as the said Association was bringing disrepute and instability in the internal affairs of the first plaintiff to pander the disgruntled members of the first plaintiff. 11. The case of the plaintiffs is that the after Annual General Body Meeting of the first plaintiff Union was conducted on 25.10.2015, the next meeting was held on 22.12.2019. Though the Bye-laws of the first plaintiff contemplated that Annual General Body Meeting to be held every year, in practice it was being held once in three years and accepted and the functioning of the first plaintiff has been without any major problem. 12. Though the Bye-laws of the first plaintiff contemplated that Annual General Body Meeting to be held every year, in practice it was being held once in three years and accepted and the functioning of the first plaintiff has been without any major problem. 12. It is submitted that as per the un-amended Bye-laws, the members of the Executive Committee shall be elected at the Annual General Body Meeting and shall hold office till the next election and interim vacancies in the Executive Committee was to be filled by the committee by co-option and that the co-opted members were to hold office till the next election by the General Body. 13. The last Annual General Body Meeting of the plaintiff Union held on 22.12.2019 but the election to the Executive Committee and office bearers of the first plaintiff union could not be completed due to paucity of time and therefore the meeting was adjourned by three months for electing officer bearers by consensus and unanimity without specifying next date of Meeting. 14. However, before meeting could not be held, some of the disgruntled members of the first plaintiff who are also members of AIBEA, AICBEF and AIBOA attempted to convene a meeting on 24.01.2020 by circulating vide a Circular No.5/24/2019 dated 21.01.2020. It was successfully thwarted by cautioning the members. Thereafter, another meeting was called on 29.01.2020 by the General Secretary of Tamil Nadu Bank Employees' Federation and thereafter finally on 04.03.2020 by the third respondent (who is not a member of the first plaintiff union) vide notice dated 26.02.2020. 15. Under these circumstances, the outgoing General Secretary of the first plaintiff once again cautioned the members of the first plaintiff union to boycott the so called General Body Meeting proposed to be held on 04.03.2020. Thereafter, an emergent meeting was called on 02.03.2020 and a Meeting was held on 03.03.2020 when the new office bearers of the first plaintiff represented by the second plaintiff as the President and the third plaintiff as the General Secretary were elected and appointed. 16. The defendants have filed Application Nos.15 and 16 of 2021 to vacate the interim order dated 16.12.2020. They claim to have been elected as office bearers of the first plaintiff on 04.03.2020 in pursuance of the aforesaid notice dated 26.02.2020 of the third defendant. 17. 16. The defendants have filed Application Nos.15 and 16 of 2021 to vacate the interim order dated 16.12.2020. They claim to have been elected as office bearers of the first plaintiff on 04.03.2020 in pursuance of the aforesaid notice dated 26.02.2020 of the third defendant. 17. Appearing on behalf of the defendants, Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, the learned counsel, submits that the entire exercise by the second and third plaintiff in collusion with the outgoing office bearers of the first plaintiff was contrary to the Bye-laws of the first plaintiff. 18. It is submitted that the second and third plaintiff along with the outgoing office bearers of the first plaintiff claim to have installed themselves as the office bearers when indeed a proper meeting was called for vide notice dated 26.02.2020 and a meeting was indeed held on 04.03.2020 when the first and second defendant were elected as President and General Secretary of the first plaintiff along with others. 19. It is submitted that the second and the third plaintiff cannot arrogate upon themselves as the President and General Secretary of the first plaintiff by convening an illegal meeting on 03.03.2020 without proper notice to the member of first plaintiff. 20. Defending the conduct of the plaintiffs and the election held on 03.03.2020 and the decision taken, the learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiffs Mr.V.Prakash submits that the first plaintiff was under threat of instability by fringe elements who were bent upon bringing disrepute and instability within the first plaintiff and that an attempt was made by the outgoing office bearers to maintain the unity by electing members/office bearers unanimously and therefore in the meeting that was held on 22.12.2019 and it was decided to adjourn the meeting by three months. It was submitted that the meeting held on 03.03.2020 was an adjourned meeting as all the agenda for the meeting held on 22.12.2019 was not completed. 21. It is submitted that during the interregnum, some of the disgruntled members colluded with each other and called for an illegal meeting on 29.01.2020 by a notice dated 23.01.2020. 22. It is submitted that the third defendant as General Secretary of the All India Bank Officers Association was not the General Secretary of the first plaintiff. 21. It is submitted that during the interregnum, some of the disgruntled members colluded with each other and called for an illegal meeting on 29.01.2020 by a notice dated 23.01.2020. 22. It is submitted that the third defendant as General Secretary of the All India Bank Officers Association was not the General Secretary of the first plaintiff. It is submitted that under the Bye-laws, the power to call for the meeting of the members of the first plaintiff was vested only with the General Secretary of the first plaintiff. 23. It is further submitted that the so-called meeting called for by the third defendant vide notice dated 26.02.2020 for the General Body Meeting of the first plaintiff was an illegal and therefore the alleged election to the office of the first plaintiff in the alleged meeting held on 04.03.2020 was also illegal. 24. It is further submitted that in absence of valid challenge to the election of the office bearers of the first plaintiff on 03.03.2020 represented by the second and third plaintiff, the interference at the behest of the first to third defendant cannot be allowed and therefore prayed for interim order of this Court be made absolute. 25. By way of a re-joinder to above arguments, the learned counsel for the defendants submitted that an Advocate Commissioner or a Retired Judge of the High Court may be appointed as an Election Commissioner to conduct a fresh election. 26. He submits that the results of such election will show whether the second and third plaintiff along with the others who claim to have been elected enjoy any confidence or not of the members of the first plaintiff and have any legitimacy to remain in power. He further submits that 75% of the members are unhappy with the autocratic manner in which the affairs of the first plaintiff are being conducted and therefore a necessity arose which warranted the third defendant to intervene to issue notice on 26.03.2020 as no attempt was made by the outgoing management to hold an election after the meeting was adjourned on 22.12.2019. 27. The learned counsel for the other defendants submitted that they will abide by any order that may be passed by this Court. 28. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs and the learned counsel for the defendants. 29. 27. The learned counsel for the other defendants submitted that they will abide by any order that may be passed by this Court. 28. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs and the learned counsel for the defendants. 29. The claim of the first and second defendant to the office of the first plaintiff is based on the notice dated 26.02.2020 issued by the third defendant who is the General Secretary of the All India Bank Officers Association for the Meeting of the first plaintiff appears to be contrary to the Bye-laws of the first plaintiff Union. Therefore, the so-called election held on 04.03.2020 in the meeting pursuant to notice dated 26.02.2020 is irregular and cannot be recognised. 30. At the same time, the alacrity with which the second and third plaintiffs along with other office bearers got themselves appointed / elected / selected by convening an emergent meeting on 03.03.2020 was also contrary to the Bye-laws of the first plaintiff. It shows that their election / selection / appointment was also not regular and that the outgoing office bearers of the first plaintiff wanted their nominees to occupy the position in the first plaintiff without a proper election. 31. There is however no challenge to the same by the first or the second defendant or by any other members of the first plaintiff by way of a counter suit. At the same time, the continuance of the second and third plaintiff as the President and the General Secretary along with others who got themselves appointed / elected / selected on 03.03.2020 cannot be allowed for a period of three years from 03.03.2020 in terms of socalled amendment to the Bye-laws on 03.03.2020 as no valid election or a meeting was held as per the Bye-laws in force of the first plaintiff. As such the amendment to the Bye-laws also cannot be allowed to continue. 32. Therefore, all the decisions taken on 03.03.2020 shall remain suspended until a newly members of the first plaintiff are elected / appointed as per the Bye-laws. All the decisions taken since 03.03.2020 shall be subject to ratification by the newly elected body of the first plaintiff pursuant to this order save as those which impact the third party rights. 33. Therefore, all the decisions taken on 03.03.2020 shall remain suspended until a newly members of the first plaintiff are elected / appointed as per the Bye-laws. All the decisions taken since 03.03.2020 shall be subject to ratification by the newly elected body of the first plaintiff pursuant to this order save as those which impact the third party rights. 33. The second and the third plaintiff shall hold the office on a temporary basis along with other office bearers appointed / elected / selected on 03.03.2020 for a period of three months from today till 22.06.2021 or till the date of election whichever is earlier. 34. They shall hold a fresh election in accordance with the provisions of the Bye-laws of the first plaintiff as in force prior to 03.03.2020. Such election shall be conducted in a free and fair manner within a period of three months from today, i.e. 22.06.2021. The proposed election shall be strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Bye-laws of first plaintiff as in force prior to 03.03.2020. All the members of the first plaintiff shall be entitled to participate in the proposed election. 35. If any irregularity is noticed, it is open to any of members of the first plaintiff to approach the Court for suitable orders for appointment of an Election Commissioner for conduct of a free and fair election to the office of the first plaintiff. 36. Pending such elections, it is made clear that no major expenses shall be incurred from and out of the funds of the first plaintiff by any of the persons who are to continue to hold office till the election and the declaration of results. 37. It is open to the newly elected office bearers of the first plaintiff to initiate appropriate proceedings against such office bearers appointed / elected / selected on 03.03.2020, if any irregularity is noticed by them on assuming office after election. 38. Original Application Nos.712 and 713 of 2020 and Application Nos. 15 and 16 of 2021 are disposed in terms of the above observations. No costs.