UNI is Ours

UNI is Ours

Tuesday, September 7, 2010

Mohanlal Joshi reply in court of law

THE COURT OF HON’BLE SH. ARUN KUMAR ARYA, LD. ADJ, PATIALA HOUSE COURT, NEW DELHI
CIVIL SUIT NO. OF 2010
IN THE MATTER OF:

RAJESH KUMAR & ORS PLAINTIFFS
VERSUS
UNI WORKERS UNION DEFANDANTS

WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE ABOVE-NAMED REPONDENT/DEFANDANT NO.1

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

PRELIMINARY SUBMISSIONS:

1. That at the outset it is stated that all the facts which are stated in the plaint is wrong and specifically denied save those which are admitted by the defendant no.1 herein in his reply.

2. That it is stated that the plaintiffs has not approached this Hon'ble Court with clean hands. They have been concealed material facts and have this represented material facts and projected a incorrect case before this Hon'ble Court for their illegal personal gains.

3. That it is stated that the plaintiff no.1 was not discharging his duty in a lawful and proper manner and did not perform his duty in the interest of the employees and inclusion and connivance with some of the executive members tried to capture the union itself and further tried to extend their tenure by illegal and unjustified manner and did not act in accordance with the Constitution of the UNI workers union and there was unrest and dissatisfaction amongst all the employees against them.

4. That it is stated that the salary of the employees were not being paid by the management and their was salary due of more than six months of each employees and management by way of VRS scheme, terms and conditions which were very unjustified, unreasonable and arbitrary in nature and by way of this management tried to do away with the wage board employees but the plaintiff no.1 and some of the office bearer and executive members where not acting bonafidely for the cause of the employees and did not protect against the unjust and arbitrary acts of the management and were busy in own personal politics. The employees of UNI were very against of their acts and way of functioning and these persons were not listening to the grievances of the employees and were just trying to extend their tenure by illegal means and were not ready to hold the election for illegal personal benefits and so the employees in the validly called GBM for the purpose of discussing VRS issue and holding of election demanded in the GBM to hold election of the UNI worker Union on time and authorized the president of the defendant no.1 to take decision in this regard.

5. That it is stated that having understood the mood of the majority of employees and decision of GBM the plaintiffs and some others executive members tried to sabotage the democrative desire of the employees by taking illegal and unjustified decision in the executive meeting and thereby tried to over rule the decision taken by the GBM which is not permissible in law and hence the same were not according by the majority of employees.

6. That it is stated that the present civil suit as filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable as the issue in question and relief as prayed by the plaintiffs has already become infructuous in view of this fact that the injunction sought for restraining the defendant nos 1 and 2 from holding the union elections on 26.08.2010 has already taken place and new set of office bearers for the year 2010-2011 are already elected unanimously on 21.08.2010 only. The new union has started working and is looking after the day to day affairs of the union and the employees.

7. That it is stated that the election process was lawfully called for vide notice dated 05.08.2010 by the defendant no.2 pursuant to the decision taken by the GBM held on 20.07.2010 to hold the election on time.

8. That it is stated that notice for holding election was already brought to the notice of one and all by way of pasting notice on notice board by defendant no.1 and the information regarding the same was given by the defendant no.1 to the Deputy Labour Commissioner, New Delhi by letter dated 05.08.2010. The defendant no.2 was appointed as returning officer to conduct the annual union election in a fresh and fair manner.

9. That it is stated that vide notice dated 05.08.2010 defendant no.2 had informed the employee regarding the holding of election for office bearers and executive members total 18 in numbers. It is further stated that by way of the second notice dated 06.08.2010 the defendant no.2 again informed by putting the notice on the notice board declaring that the election of the office bearers of the UNI Employee Union defendant no.1 will be held on 26.08.2010 at the UNI office premises and further stating that any candidate who is interested in contesting the election may contact the defendant no.2 for nomination form. It was further informed by way of this notice that the nomination form duly completed in all respect be submitted to the returning officer i.e. defendant no.2 from 14.08.2010 to 19.08.2010 and the last date of receiving nomination paper was declared to be as 19.08.2010 up to 3 PM. The scrutiny of the documents was to be held on 19.08.2010 up to 5 PM and the last date of withdrawal from the election was up to 21.08.2010 up to 5 PM and final list to be displayed on 21.08.2010 and the date of polling was declare to be on 26.08.2010 from 10 AM to 5 PM.

10. That it is stated that 30 employees filed their nomination papers before returning officer i.e. defendant no.2 and by way of the third notice dated 19.08.2010 the details of the candidate who filed the nomination paper for respective post of President, vice President and others were displaced on notice board. It is pertinent to mention here that the first leg of election process was legally completed upto 19.08.2010. Till that day there was no order whatsoever of any nature passed by any Hon’ble Court ordering to stop the election process and hence bonafidely in view of the decision taken by GBM dated 20.07.2010 which was called lawfully in accordance with the Constitution of the UNI worker’s Union, the election process was started and given effect to.

11. That it is stated that the plaintiffs filed the present civil suit which came up for hearing on 19.08.2010 and also on 20.08.2010 when this matter was heard by this Hon’ble Court on 20.08.2010 notice was issued of the present suit as well as application to the defendants for 23.08.2010 but no stay order was passed by this Hon’ble Court to stop the election process mid way. The plea of the plaintiff to pass as Ex-parte stay order was not granted by this hon’ble court in favour of the plaintiff and the defendant herein and hence there was no bar on the part of the defendants to hold the election and participate in election. Accordingly prior to the date of hearing i.e. 23.08.2010, in view of the fact that after withdrawal of many of the candidates from the relation…. only single candidate was left for all respective post for which election to be held and polling was to be done on 26.08.2010. The 18 candidates including the office bearer and executive members were elected unopposed for the year 2010-2011 on 21.08.2010 itself and there was no need to go for polling on 26.08.2010.

12. That it is stated that when the defendants appear before this Hon’ble Court on 23.08.2010 the civil suit had already become infractions as election process had taken its finality on 21.08.2010. Already 18 candidates were elected unopposed for UNI Employee Union election 2010-2011 and there was no need to go for polling on 26.08.2010 for electing the new office bearer and executive members.

13. That it is stated that the entire suit become infractuous on 21.08.2010 itself and the relief as prayed by the plaintiff in their application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 and the permanent relief as prayed in the civil suit for present relief cannot granted as the election already had taken place and new office bearer have already assumed charge. Pursuant to their election, meeting of the executive committee has already taken place on 27.08.2010 in Union office, and GBM was called by new office bearer vide notice dated 27.08.2010. Copy of this was already sent to the management i.e. the defendant no. 3. Accordingly on 30.08.2010 at 2:30 PM as scheduled the GBM was held and attended by majority of person i.e. around 161 employees attended the GBM and welcomed the new office bearer and prior to the GBM and after the GBM the newly elected office bearer have taken over and are functioning and performing their duty as office bearer and executive members of the union in accordance to the constitution of UNI Worker Union. Nothing survives in the present suit and as the relief as prayed permanently and temporally cannot be granted so in view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances the present suit is liable to dismiss as an infractuous.

14. That it is stated that the present suit is not maintainable even otherwise as plaintiff no. 3 is no more in service of UNI Worker Union and Mr. Rajesh Kumar Plaintiff No.1 had no authority to file the present petition as General Secretary of UNI Worker Union as his continuations and claiming to be General Secretary of UNI Worker Union on the date of filing of present suit is itself improper, unjustified and bad in nature.

15. That it is stated that the present suit further not maintainable in view of this fact that there is no proper and valid authorization in favour of plaintiff no.1by the union and there is no documents on record that he was authorized and competent to file the present suit against the union itself and without proper valid authorization the filing of the present suit is bad in law and the same is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground itself.

16. That it is stated that the decision of the GBM is supreme and cannot be challenged when the decision was taken by the majority of employees and the calling of the GBM was in accordance of the law. When employees during the course of GBM had already decided and authorize the President and Vice President of the union to hold the election on time and so the same cannot be challenged until unless election process was in violation of the Constitution of Union. It is pertinent to mention here that in the present case in hand the GBM on 20.07.2010 was called by the President who had power to call the same in accordance with the Constitution. The GBM was lawfully called and attended by the majority of employee, decision was taken not by any individual but by the GBM who authorized the defendant no.1 president and vice President to hold the election and only thereafter the entire election process get initiated by the defendant no.1 in accordance to the decision taken by the GBM 20.07.2010 in accordance with the Constitution. In this validly initiated. Election process each and every employee was given free, fair and equal opportunity to participate in election process and free fair election was conducted in accordance with law.

PARA-WISE REPLY:

1. That the contents of para no.1 of the present suit are partly wrong and partly correct. It is wrong and denied that the plaintiff No.1 is the General Secretary of the UNI Workers Union. It is correct that UNI Worker Union is a registered trade union under Trade Union’s Act having a constitution of which journalists as well as non-journalist employees working with the UNI.

2. That the contents of the para No.2 of the plaint is correct except this that the plaintiff No.3 is no more employed / working with UNI.

3. That the contents of the para No.3 of the plaint is misconceived, misrepresented, incorrect and hence the same are wrong and denied. It is stated that there was no occasion for the President of the defendant No.1 Union to accept the aid and advise of the General Secretary of the Union as well as the Executive Committee as the General Body Meeting attended by the majority of the workers had decided to hold election on time and had authorized the President and Vice-President of the defendant No.1 union to hold the election and take necessary action in this regard. It is wrong and denied that the defendant No.1 is being run by its President on its own in an arbitrary wrong, illegal and unfair manner and in collusion with the defendant No.4 and it is further wrong and denied that the plaintiffs represent the majority of the employees or that they are seriously aggrieved. It is pertinent to mention here that the majority of the employees have already endorsed the election of the newly elected union in the GBM held on 30.08.2010 and the falsity of the claim / statement of the plaintiffs is apparently clear by this fact itself.

4. That in response to the contents of the para No.4 it is stated that the President of the defendant No.1 union is competent and authorized as per the Constitution of the UNI workers union to call for a GBM and no authority of permission is required of any person in this regard. It is further stated that the calling of the GBM by the defendant No.1 President vide notice 19.07.2010 for GBM dated 20.07.2010 at UNI Lawns was in accordance with the constitution and the wish of the majority of the employees of the UNI and there was no requirement or necessity to consult the Executive Committee or General Secretary i.e. defendant No.1 or any of the plaintiffs to call for the GBM on 20.07.2010. The contention of the plaintiffs is completely misconceived, unjustified and against the provisions of the constitution.

5. That in response to the contents of the para No.5 of the plaint it is stated that the Executive Meeting was called by the plaintiffs on 03.08.2010 to Sabotage the over whelming desire and decision of the General Body Meeting taken on 20.07.2010. It is though correct that Executive Meeting was called by the plaintiff No.1 vide notice dated 02.08.2010 for 03.08.2010.

6. That though the contents of the para No.6 is a matter of record needs no reply. But it is stated that the alleged resolutions passed by the Executive Committee was illegal, unjustified, unreasonable and against the wishes of the majority of the employees and it was an attempt on the part of the Executive Committee and the plaintiffs to extend their tenure in an illegal and unjustified manner.

7. That in response to the contents of the para No.7 of the plaint it is stated that the appointment of the defendant No.2 as Returning Officer an announcement of holding of election vide notice dated 04.08.2010 was in accordance with the decision taken by the GBM on 20.07.2010 and there was nothing wrong and illegal about it. It is stated that there was no requirement for consulting the Executive Committee for holding of the elections or announcement of the defendant No.2 as Returning Officer as the decision of the GBM is supreme and binding upon the Executive Committee. It is stated that the holding of the Executive Committee meeting on 03.08.2010 itself was illegal and unjustified as the agenda in question which was to be discussed in the Executive Committee and the decision taken in the Executive Committee was an attempt on their part to circumvent and override the decision of the GBM which is void ab-initio as nobody can be above the decision of the GBM and the constitution.

8. That in response to the contents of the para No.8 of the plaint it is stated that the issue in question as stated in this paragraph had no relation whatsoever with the issue involved in the plaint. It is stated that the lady employee in question had made a false complaint with the management regarding a false incident at the behest of the plaintiff No.1 and others for their illegal personal gains and reply to the same was already submitted by the persons concerned. It is stated that nobody was roughed up on 23.07.2010 at 2:30 p.m. Rajesh Kumar, Virender Verma and others were never beaten up and they had filed a false complaint in this regard.

9. That in response to the contents of the para No.9 of the plaint it is stated that the issue in question as stated in this paragraph had no relation whatsoever with the issue involved in the plaint. It is stated that the lady employee in question had made a false complaint with the management regarding a false incident at the behest of the plaintiff No.1 and others for their illegal personal gains and reply to the same was already submitted by the persons concerned.

10 That in response to the contents of the para No.10 of the plaint it is stated that the issue in question as stated in this paragraph had no relation whatsoever with the issue involved in the plaint. It is stated that the lady employee in question had made a false complaint with the management regarding a false incident at the behest of the plaintiff No.1 and others for their illegal personal gains and reply to the same was already submitted by the persons concerned. It is stated that the apprehensions of the plaintiff No.1 were unfounded. The plaintiff No.1 by such act had only tried to delay the holding of union elections.

11. That the defendant No.1 relies upon the contents of the preliminary submission in response to the contents of the present para in hand, contents of which are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity and to avoid multiplicity of papers and the same may be read as part and parcel of the present reply.

12. That in response to the contents of the present para No.12 it is stated that the plaintiff No.1 had issued a notice dated 05.08.2010 the contents of which are matter record. That the defendant No.1 relies upon the contents of the preliminary submission in response to the contents of the present para in hand, contents of which are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity and to avoid multiplicity of papers and the same may be read as part and parcel of the present reply.

13. That the contents of the para No.13 is correct. It is stated that the announcement of the elections vide notice dated 05/06.08.2010 was in accordance with the decision of the Union.

14-15. That the contents of the para No.14 and 15 are wrong and denied. It is stated that the relief as prayed by the plaintiff has already become infructuous as elections have already taken place and new union have already been found. It is further stated that the acts of the defendant No.1 and 2 were inconformity of the constitution of the UNI worker union and all the decision and acts were justified and proper.

16. That the contents of the para No.16 being legal and needs no reply.

17. That the contents of the para No.17 being legal and needs no reply.

18. That the contents of the para No.18 being legal and needs no reply and it is further stated that the matter has already become infructuous.

19-20. That the contents of the para No.19 and 20 being legal and needs no reply and it is further stated that the matter has already become infructuous.

Prayer clause of the suit is also wrong, false, baseless and denied. It is further stated that the relief prayed cannot be granted as the suit itself is not maintainable in view of the facts as stated in the preliminary submission contents of which are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity and avoid multiplicity of papers and the defendant herein rely upon the same in response to the prayer clause.

It is, therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to dismiss the present suit as infructuous.





DEFENDANT NO.1

DELHI

THROUGH

DATED:07.09.2010



COUNSELS

THE CONSIGLIARE LAW OFFICES

1/14-B, LGF, JUNG PURA-A, NEW DELHI-110014

PH.NO. 011-24372882

E-mail tclo.india@gmail.com

VERIFICATION:-

Verified at Delhi on this 7th day of September, 2010 that the contents of the preliminary submission, contents of the para No.1 to 15 is true and correct to my knowledge and belief and records maintained by the defendant No.1 union and those of paras No.16 to 20 and reply to prayer clause is true and correct as per legal information received and last para is prayer to this Hon’ble Court.





DEFENDANT NO.1

IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE SH. ARUN KUMAR ARYA, LD. ADJ, PATIALA HOUSE COURT, NEW DELHI



CIVIL SUIT NO. OF 2010



IN THE MATTER OF:



RAJESH KUMAR & ORS PLAINTIFFS



VERSUS



UNI WORKERS UNION DEFANDANTS



AFFIDAVIT



I, M.L.Joshi, President of UNI Workers Union aged about 46 years, S/o Late Shri Inder mani joshi, Registered office at 9, Rafi Marg, new Delhi-01 do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:

1. That I am President of UNI workers Union in the above mentioned civil suit and as such fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and competent to swear this affidavit.

2. That all the facts stated and contentions raised in the accompanying written statement in the present civil suit have been drafted by my counsel under my instructions and I admit the same as true and correct and nothing material is concealed thereof and the contents of the same may kindly be read as part and parcel of this affidavit which have not being repeated herein for the sake of brevity and the convenience of this Hon’ble Court.



DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:-

Verified at Delhi on this 7th day of September, 2010 that the contents of the above affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing material has been concealed there from.



DEPONENT

IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE SH. ARUN KUMAR ARYA, LD. ADJ, PATIALA HOUSE COURT, NEW DELHI



CIVIL SUIT NO. OF 2010



IN THE MATTER OF:



RAJESH KUMAR & ORS PLAINTIFFS



VERSUS



UNI WORKERS UNION DEFANDANTS







REPLY TO THE APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 CPC ON BEHALF OF THE DEFANDANT NO.1.



MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That at the outset it is stated that all the facts which are stated in the application is wrong and specifically denied save those which are admitted by the defendant no.1 herein in his reply.

2. That it is stated that rather then being a parawise reply of the application in hand the defendant No.1 herein relies upon the contents of the W.S. as part and parcel of the reply to the entire contents of the present application in hand contents of which are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity and to avoid multiplicity of papers. The contents of the W.S. is reaffirmed and reiterated in response to the para No.1 to 10 of the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with section 151 CPC.

3. That it is stated that as already mentioned in detail in the written statement that the suit itself has become infructuous so in view of that the present application has also become infructuous and ad-interim ex-parte injunctions against the defendants regarding the notices in question and holding of election on 26.08.2010 cannot be granted as elections have already taken place and new officer bearers and executive members have started functioning.

Prayer clause of the application is also wrong, false, baseless and denied. It is further stated that the relief prayed cannot be granted as the application itself is not maintainable in view of the facts as stated in the written statement contents of which are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity and to avoid multiplicity of papers and the defendant herein rely upon the same in response to the prayer clause.

It is, therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to dismiss the application as infructuous.





DEFENDANT NO.1

DELHI

THROUGH

DATED:07.09.2010



COUNSELS

THE CONSIGLIARE LAW OFFICES

1/14-B, LGF, JUNG PURA-A, NEW DELHI-110014

PH.NO. 011-24372882

E-mail tclo.india@gmail.com

IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE SH. ARUN KUMAR ARYA, LD. ADJ, PATIALA HOUSE COURT, NEW DELHI



CIVIL SUIT NO. OF 2010



IN THE MATTER OF:



RAJESH KUMAR & ORS PLAINTIFFS



VERSUS



UNI WORKERS UNION DEFANDANTS



AFFIDAVIT



I, M.L.Joshi, President of UNI Workers Union aged about 46 years, S/o Late Shri Inder mani joshi, Registered office at 9, Rafi Marg, new Delhi-01 do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:

1. That I am President of UNI workers Union in the above mentioned civil suit and as such fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and competent to swear this affidavit.

2. That all the facts stated and contentions raised in the accompanying reply to the application U/o 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with section 151 CPC have been drafted by my counsel under my instructions and I admit the same as true and correct and nothing material is concealed thereof and the contents of the same may kindly be read as part and parcel of this affidavit which have not being repeated herein for the sake of brevity and the convenience of this Hon’ble Court.



DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:-

Verified at Delhi on this 7th day of September, 2010 that the contents of the above affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing material has been concealed there from.



DEPONENT

No comments:

Post a Comment