B. SRINIVASA REDDY versus KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 462 · Decided: 28-08-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
B. SRINIVASA REDDY 
v. 
KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE 
BOARD EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION AND ORS. 
AUGUST 28, 2006 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] 
Service Law-Appointment-Contractual appointment-Appellant was 
C Managing Director of Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board-
Pursuant to retirement he was re-appointed by State Government on the same 
post on contract basis "until fi1rther orders"-Challenge to-Upheld by 
High Court-Held: Government had undoubted power to make contractual 
appointment until further orders-The power incfoded the power to make 
appointment on substantive basis, temporary basis, officiating basis, ad hoc 
D basis, daily wages or contractual basis-There was no violation of any 
statutory provision because the appellant had requisite experience and 
capacity before appointment-Writ petition filed by Employees' Union and 
its President was motivated-Findings of legal mala tides by High Court 
unsustainable-Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board Act, 
,, 
J 
E 1973 and the Rules made thereunder Sections 4(2)& 6(1) I Rule 3. 
industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section 2(q)(q)---!rade Unions Act, 
1926-Chapter Jll-Managing Director of Karnataka Urban Water Supply 
and Drainage Board pursuant to retirement re-appointed on the same post 
on contract basis-Wr.it petition filed by Employees' union challenging the 
F same-Union not registered on the date of filing writ petition-Maintainability 
of the writ petition-Held, not maintainable-Constitution of India, 1950-
Article 226. 
G 
H 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226-Quo Warranto-Writ of Quo 
Warran to does not lie if the alleged violation is not of a statutory provision. 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226-Petition praying for Writ of 
Quo Warranto-/s in the nature of public interest litigation-Hence it is not 
maintainable at the instance of a person who is not unbiased. 
Equity-Relief-Courts not to grant relief to person who comes to 
462 
-
B. SRINIVASA REDDY F. KARNATAKA.URBAN WATER SUPPLY &:DRAINAGE BOARD EMP. ASSON. 
463 
Court with unclean hands and with malafide intention/motive. 
A 
Appellant retired as Managing Director of the Karnataka Urban Water 
Supply and Drainage Board (Respondent No.4) on 31-01-2004. He was re-
appointed on the sanie post on 01-02-2004 on contract basis "until further 
orders". This was challenged by Respondent No.1, the Karnataka Urban Water 
Supply & Drainage Board Employees' Association, by filing writ petition. High B 
Court allowed the writ petition. 
In appeals to this Court, the questions which arose for consideration 
are 1) Whether the writ petition framed at the instance of Respondent No. 1 
was not maintainable since it was not a registered trade union on the date of 
filing of the writ petition which information was withheld from the Court; 2) C 
Whether the writ petition was also motivated as Respondent No. 1 had earlier 
lodged a false complaint to the Lokayukta against the Appellant which was 
found to be baseless and 3) Whether the State Government had the requisite 
. power to make the contractual appointment "until further orders" without 
specifying the period of appointment and no writ of Quo Warranto could be D 
issued in that regard. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The petitioners in the writ petition, respondent No.1 which 
is an unregistered Association under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 cannot 
maintain the writ petition. [503-E] 
E 
1.2. Chapter-Ill of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 sets out rights and 
liabilities of the registered Trade Unions. Under the said enactment, an 
unregistered trade union or a trade union whose registration has been 
cancelled has no manner of right whatsoever, even the rights available under 
the l.D. Act have been limited only to those trade unions which are registered F 
under the Trade Unions Act 1926 by insertion of clause 2 (q)(q) in the I.D. 
Act w.e.f. 21.08.1984 defining a trade union to mean a trade union registered 
under the Trade Unions Act. 1926. The High Court miserably failed and 
gravely erred in holding that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have locus standi to 
question the appointment of the appellant in the light of the change of law G 
that has been brought about by insertion of Section 2(q)(q) of the LD. Act and 
having regard to the provisions of Chapter-In of the Trade Unions Act, 1926. 
(481-A-D] 
1.3. In the instant case, the employees association approached the High 
Court with unclea

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.