- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3741-DB WA No. 100503 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR WRIT APPEAL NO.100503 OF 2024 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: K V RAGHAVENDRA AGE. MAJOR, OCC. DIVISIONAL SECRETARY, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAYS, MAZDOOR UNION, SWRM UNION OFFICE, BEHIND DRM OFFICE, BENGALURU-560023. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. K. DIWAKARA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. SAURABH A. SONDUR, ADVOCATE) AND: SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAYS MAZDOOR UNION RAILWAY BUILDING NO.UBL/600, GADAG ROAD, HUBBALLI 580021, R/BY ITS ZONAL PRESIDENT AND GENERAL SECRETARY 1. SRI. ASHOK KUMAR, AGE. 59 YEARS, R/O. CHETANA COLONY, HUBBALLI 580023. 2. DR. A.M.D. CRUZ AGE. 75 YEARS, R/O. SHANTINAGAR, HUBBALLI 582203. Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3741-DB WA No. 100503 of 2024 3. SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAYS, RAIL SOUDHA, GADAG ROAD, HUBBALLI 580021, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, ARAVIND SHRIVASTAVA 4. PRINCIPAL CHIEF PERSONAL OFFICER SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAYS, RAIL SOUDHA, GADAG ROAD, HUBBALLI 580021. 5. T.S. SRINIVASA AGE. MAJOR, OCC. ZONAL VICE PRESIDENT, R/O. DOOR NO. 208-F, RAILWAY COLONY, YESHWANTPUR, BENGALURU 560022. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.M. SHEELVANT, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 & R2; SRI. SANJAY S. KATAGERI, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4; SRI. RAGHUVEER R. SATTIGERI, ADVOCATE FOR R5) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, SET SIDE THE ORDER DATED 12/09/2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH IN W.P.NO.104914/2024 (S-RES), AND DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER WITH HEAVY EXEMPLARY COSTS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL DISPOSAL, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3741-DB WA No. 100503 of 2024 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) The dispute is essentially between the appellant and the first and the second respondents, and for the present purposes, this Court may observe that the genesis for this dispute is in the first and the second respondents’ grievance with notice dated 02.08.2024 issued on behalf of the Principal Chief Personnel Officer, Southwestern Railway. This Officer has issued the notice dated 02.08.2024 in response to a request for convening a meeting. The Officer has advised the appellant to comply with Article 22[b][v] of the bye-laws of Southwestern Railways Mazdoor Union [SWRMU] and submit required supportive documents to call for a meeting. 2. The first and the second respondents have called in question this notice dated 02.08.2024 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3741-DB WA No. 100503 of 2024 in W.P. No.104914/2024. The writ Court, essentially because the request for meeting is without a requisition by 1/5th of the members, has quashed the notice by the impugned order dated 12.09.2024, and the writ Court has also reserved liberty to the SWRMU to request for a meeting under its bye-laws. Sri. K. Diwakar, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, submits that in terms of the liberty reserved by the writ Court, a meeting is called on 08.12.2024 and the appellant is elected as the General Secretary. If this is so, the question for consideration is whether this appeal could be continued by the appellant. 3. This question does not need an elaborate answer as it cannot be gainsaid that if meeting is called for and the appellant is elected, his grievance with the writ Court’s order as aforesaid is rendered infructuous. However, Sri. V.M. Sheelavant, the learned counsel for the first and the second - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3741-DB WA No. 100503 of 2024 respondents, submits that these respondents seriously dispute that a meeting is called or that the appellant is elected as General Secretary of the Union in such meeting. Sri. V.M. Sheelavant also proposes to contend that the appellant will not be qualified to contest the elections. When queried, the learned counsel submits that if there is any question in connection with or incidental to any election, it must be referred to a committee as is contemplated under Rule 42 of the Karnataka Trade Unions Regulations, 1958. 4. This Court is of the considered view that if this intra-Court appeal is rendered infructuous, the question, whether the appellant is elected in a duly called meeting by the requisite electoral college, is a matter to be examined in the properly instituted proceedings. The first and second respondents, or any other person with necessary locus, can begin such proceedings. This Court cannot enter into this controversy in the present - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3741-DB WA No. 100503 of 2024 proceedings, but it must enable an appropriate communication by the Southwestern Railway about the rival claim on convening of the meeting and the appellant’s election so that the cause, if any, for any further proceedings is spelt out. 5. Sri. K. Diwakara proposes to invite this Court’s attention to some observations in the writ Court’s impugned order for interference, but it would suffice to observe that as the intra-court appeal is being disposed of on terms and with just liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings, neither the appellant nor the first and second respondents can be prejudiced by any observations that could be. This Court must also observe that this would be so because the writ Court's interference with the notice dated 02.08.2024 is essentially because that it is not on a request by the requisite 1/5th of the members. 6. The other incidental question is about the recognition of the SWRMU. This Court, by way of - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3741-DB WA No. 100503 of 2024 an interim order dated 21.10.2024, has permitted both the appellant and the second respondent to file nominations to secure recognition for the SWRMU. It is now placed on record that in terms of the permission granted by this Court, both the appellant and the second respondent have filed their separate nominations and together they have polled requisite number of votes which ensures recognition to the SWRMU. In this regard, two questions are presented for consideration at this stage when the dispute about the election of the General Secretary to the Union could be persisting. The questions are viz., what would be the status of the recognition with both the appellant and the second respondent filing their nominations and who should receive the Certificate of Recognition from the Railway Authorities. 7. This Court, in the peculiarities of this case where two persons are permitted to file nominations and between them they have polled the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3741-DB WA No. 100503 of 2024 requisite number of votes to secure the recognition of the SWRMU, must opine that the recognition cannot be jettisoned or jeopardized because of the continuing dispute about who the General Secretary is. Insofar as the question, to whom the Certificate of Recognition should be handed over, if the handing over of Certificate is deferred for some reasonable period, it would not in any manner undermine the recognition of the SWRMU. The deferment must be until the controversy about who between the appellant and the second respondent is duly elected as the General Secretary is adjudicated or accepted in the requisite proceedings, or until orders are passed in that regard in such proceedings. In the light of the afore, the following: ORDER [a] The intra court appeal stands disposed of calling upon the fourth respondent to communicate to both the appellant and the second - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3741-DB WA No. 100503 of 2024 respondent the details of the electoral college and meeting and the outcome of the meeting, if any, as asserted by the appellant within [4] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. [b] The first and the second respondents are reserved with liberty to seek adjudication of the question: whether the appellant is duly elected as a General Secretary, if there is a cause. The proceedings shall be begun at the earliest, and in any event within 4 [four] weeks from the date of receipt of the details from the fourth respondent. [c] It is declared that the recognition of the SWRMU shall not be - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3741-DB WA No. 100503 of 2024 prejudiced or jeopardized or jettisoned by the continuing dispute, if there is any, and the Certificate of Recognition shall be handed over to such person who is adjudicated to be the duly elected General Secretary if there is continuing dispute, or subject to any order in the proceedings referred to above. SD/- (B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SD/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE RSH, CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 37