The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the electoral process (voter list preparation and verification) for a Mandatory Joint Consultative Machinery Level-IV council election regarding a trade union, holding the issue not maintainable for lack of public function element.
Instant writ petition dismissed along with pending applications.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~36
MAZDOOR PANCHAYAT & ORS. .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Adarsh Kr. Tiwari, Mr. Ashutosh Mani Tiwari and Mr. Vinit, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Vineet Dhanda, CGSC. Mr. Padam Kumar, Mr. Yash Tyagi, Adv.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
O R D E R % 12.09.2024
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/07/2025 at 22:08:28
Court finds that the election of trade union is the subject matter of the instant writ petition.
21. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Pawan Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. , while deciding the maintainability of a writ petition against a cooperative society, held that merely because the procedure of elections owes its genesis to the Act and Rules, it would not be enough to reach the conclusion that a society would be amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the Court. Paragraph no.31 of the said decision is reproduced as under:-
“31. Turning then to the registration of the cooperative society under the Act, it may at the outset be observed that the affairs of various bodies may be regulated and controlled by myriad statutes in respect of a wide range of activities and functions that may be performed by them. However, merely because the affairs of a particular body may be regulated by statute, that cannot be determinative of the question that stands raised. As was aptly observed by the Supreme Court in Ramakrishna Mission, law is a “ubiquitous phenomenon” and touches various aspects of the
1 2006 SCC OnLine Del 388.
2 2013 SCC OnLine Del 3023
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/07/2025 at 22:08:28
functioning of a body. It was observed that merely because a body is obligated to comply with various statutory requirements, that cannot be conclusive to answer the question of whether it is discharging a public function. The fact that the cooperative society is registered under the Act or that the Byelaws or the procedure of elections owe their genesis to the Act and the Rules, would not be sufficient to hold that it would be amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the Court.”
[emphasis supplied]
22. This Court, in another decision titled as Dr. Saravana Kodandapani & Anr. v. The All-India Ophthalmological Society , wherein, a challenge was laid to the election of a society, has held that if the bye-laws governing elections of such registered organisation are not statutory, then a writ for its contravention will not be maintainable. The relevant paragraph of the said decision is reproduced herein for reference:-
“26. What has been argued by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners is that the vires of the Bye-Laws is under challenge, therefore, the same cannot be examined by any other court. The said argument is not acceptable for the simple reason that the Bye-Laws of respondent No.1- Society are not statutory in nature. There is no reason to believe that if any challenge to the Bye-Laws in question is laid before the appropriate court, the same would not be decided in accordance with law.”
23. Reverting to the facts of the present case, it is discernible that the challenge raised by the petitioner purportedly hinges on the infraction of the CoD by the respondents. However, from the aforenoted discussion, it becomes apparent that as per the CoD, there is no statutory obligation on respondent nos.1 to 4 to conduct the process of verification of membership of majority unions operating in MTNL through secret ballot. Bearing in mind the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Ramakrishna Mission (supra) in juxtaposition with the Guidelines, the recognition of trade unions operating in MTNL as majority unions cannot be said to involve any public function for the purpose of holding the respondents amenable to writ jurisdiction. The public law element is conspicuously missing. The petitioner cannot assert any indefeasible statutory right for holding the elections through the secret ballot as per the CoD.
24. Insofar as the order dated 08.10.2012 in W.P.(C) 6333/2012 is concerned, the said order does not deal with the contention of maintainability of the writ petition at all. Since the issue of maintainability had not been dealt with, the said order could not be
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/07/2025 at 22:08:28
construed to be an authority on the issue under consideration in the instant petition. Therefore, the said order would not come to rescue the case of the petitioner. A decision is binding not because of its outcome but in regard to its rationale and the principles laid down therein.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J
SEPTEMBER 12, 2024/KG
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/07/2025 at 22:08:28
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 for election disputes of a trade union where statutory obligation for secret ballot is absent.
Whether recognizing majority trade unions involves a public function making them amenable to writ jurisdiction.
Whether the Court should entertain a writ petition challenging voter list preparation and verification for a mandatory council election.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vehicle Depot Karamchari Union v. Union of IndiaFollowed¶16
W.P.(C) 5542/2024
Pradeep Kumar V. Union of IndiaRelied on¶16
Pradeep Kumar V. Union of India
Sanjiv Mukherjee v. Northern RailwayRelied on¶16
Sanjiv Mukherjee v. Northern Railway
MTNL staff union class III and IV (Regd.) vs Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.Distinguished¶17
W.P. (C) 3577/2016
Pawan Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.Relied on¶18
Pawan Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Ramakrishna MissionExplained¶18
Ramakrishna Mission
Dr. Saravana Kodandapani & Anr. v. The All-India Ophthalmological SocietyExplained¶25
Dr. Saravana Kodandapani & Anr. v. The All-India Ophthalmological Society
(Order dated 08.10.2012)Distinguished¶28
W.P.(C) 6333/2012
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mazdoor Panchayat & Ors.
Union of India & Ors.
Purusходendra Kumar Kaurav
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
