Article 227 | No Interference with Injunction Orders Absent Perversity: Gauhati HC Clarifies Superintendence Jurisdiction in Trade Union Disputes

The Gauhati High Court has reaffirmed the limited scope of Article 227 jurisdiction, holding that mere disagreement with a lower court’s grant or vacation of a temporary injunction does not justify interference unless the order is patently perverse. This ruling provides critical clarity for practitioners navigating appellate challenges to interim orders in civil disputes involving trade unions.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The dispute centers on competing claims to leadership and control of the Purvottar Simanta Railway Karmachari Sangh (PSRKS), a registered trade union under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (Registration No. 721/1971). Two factions assert legitimacy: one led by the petitioners (Anita Singh and Paulush Mushahary), affiliated with Bharatiya Janta Mazdoor Sangha (BJMS); and another led by the respondents (Jitu Hazarika and Harish Bhuyan), claiming affiliation with Bharatiya Railway Mazdoor Sangha (BMS/BRMS).

Key Facts

• The PSRKS was originally affiliated with BMS/BRMS.
• On 14.06.2020, the petitioners’ faction passed a resolution to withdraw affiliation from BMS/BRMS and notified BMS/BRMS of this decision on 16.06.2020.
• On 14.08.2021, BJMS accepted the petitioners’ union as an affiliated body via official letter (BJMS/NS/Affiliation/8).
• On 27.09.2021, a meeting was held at Silpagram, Guwahati, to constitute a new Executive Committee, electing Anita Singh as President and Paulush Mushahary as General Secretary.
• On 08.09.2024, the Executive Committee confirmed Mushahary’s role as General Secretary.
• The respondents, who are retired railway employees, claim to be the legitimate President and Secretary of PSRKS under BMS/BRMS.
• The petitioners filed a Title Suit (T.S. No. 633/2024) seeking declaration that the respondents have no right to use the PSRKS name or banner.
• On 06.09.2024, the petitioners informed the Registrar of Trade Unions, Assam, of the respondents’ unauthorized activities.
• On 03.11.2024, the petitioners lodged an FIR at Jalukbari Police Station.
• The Registrar, by letter dated 23.10.2024, advised the petitioners to approach a civil court.
• The petitioners filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking temporary injunction.
• The respondents filed a false FIR to obtain duplicate copies of the union’s registration certificate and PAN card on 10.02.2020.
• The petitioners have submitted annual audit reports under Sections 11 and 28 of the Trade Unions Act for the years 2013 - 2023.
• The respondents submitted audit reports only for 2021 - 2023.
• On 11.07.2024, the respondents claim to have been elected President and Secretary at the Biennial General Council Meeting in Katihar, with intimation sent to the Registrar of Trade Unions.
• Nominees of the petitioners were cancelled in secret ballot elections scheduled for 4 - 6 December 2021.

Procedural History

• 17.12.2024: Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kamrup (Metro), granted temporary injunction in Misc. (J) Case No. 11/2024, restraining respondents from using PSRKS name/banner.
• 28.05.2025: Additional District Judge (FTC) No. 3, Kamrup (Metro), set aside the injunction order in Misc. Appeal No. 1/2025, holding that the three golden principles for injunction were not satisfied.
• 21.04.2026: Civil Revision Petition CRP/83/2025 filed before the Gauhati High Court under Article 227.

The Parties' Positions

Petitioners: Argue they are the legitimate faction of PSRKS since 2021, with documented affiliation to BJMS, continuous audit compliance, and validly elected office-bearers. They contend the respondents are retired employees ineligible under the union’s constitution and have fabricated claims using forged documents.

Respondents: Assert they represent the original PSRKS, still affiliated with BMS/BRMS, with validly elected leadership confirmed in July 2024. They claim the petitioners’ faction is a splinter group without legal basis and that the petitioners’ audit records are not superior.

Relief Sought

The petitioners seek quashing of the Additional District Judge’s order dated 28.05.2025, restoration of the temporary injunction granted on 17.12.2024, and directions to the respondents to cease using the PSRKS name without disclosing their BMS/BRMS affiliation.

The Legal Issue

Can a High Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution, interfere with an appellate court’s order vacating a temporary injunction merely because it disagrees with the appellate court’s reasoning, absent a finding of perversity, arbitrariness, or jurisdictional error?

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioner

The petitioners’ counsel argued that the First Appellate Court erred in setting aside the injunction without finding perversity in the Trial Court’s order. He emphasized that the Trial Court had relied on documentary evidence - registration certificate, PAN card, audit reports from 2013 - 2023, and the BJMS affiliation letter - to conclude a prima facie case. He cited Wander Ltd. v. Antox India, Ramakant Ambalal Choksi, and Seema Arshad Zaheer to underscore that appellate courts cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute their view unless the lower court’s order is perverse. He further contended that the Appellate Court illegally relied on Annexure E to J, new evidence introduced without compliance with Order 41 Rule 27 CPC.

For the Respondent

The respondents’ counsel argued that the Appellate Court correctly applied the three golden principles for injunction: prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. He submitted that the petitioners’ claim to affiliation with BJMS was unsubstantiated and that the respondents’ leadership was confirmed by the Biennial General Council on 11.07.2024 and recognized by the Registrar. He maintained that the Trial Court’s order was based on an incomplete picture and that the Appellate Court’s reversal was legally sound.

The Court's Analysis

The Court began by acknowledging the nature of the dispute: a classic case of factional rivalry within a registered trade union, where both sides claim to represent the original entity. It noted that the ultimate determination of legitimacy must await the outcome of the pending Title Suit No. 633/2024.

The Court then turned to the scope of Article 227 jurisdiction. Citing Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010) 8 SCC 329, it reiterated that the High Court’s supervisory power is not an appellate jurisdiction. It cannot interfere merely because another view is possible or because the lower court committed an error of law or fact. Intervention is permissible only where there is a patent perversity, illegality, or jurisdictional excess.

"The High Court may interfere in the orders of subordinate court in exercise of its jurisdiction of superintendence only to keep the Tribunal and Courts subordinate to it within the bounds of their authority. The High Court may also interfere if there is a patent perversity in the order of subordinate Court, however, it cannot interfere to correct mere errors of law or fact or just because another view than the one taken by Courts subordinate to it is a possible view."

The Court examined the Appellate Court’s reasoning and found that while its conclusion - that the Trial Court erred in finding a prima facie case - might be debatable or even erroneous, it was not perverse. The Appellate Court had considered the respondents’ claim of continued BMS/BRMS affiliation, the timing of the petitioners’ affiliation, and the absence of formal recognition by the Registrar. These were legitimate grounds for re-evaluation, even if the High Court might have reached a different conclusion.

The Court also noted that the Appellate Court’s reliance on Annexure E to J, though procedurally questionable, did not render the order perverse, as the outcome was not materially affected by this error.

The Court emphasized that the power under Article 227 is extraordinary and must be exercised with restraint. A mere disagreement with the reasoning of a subordinate court, however strong, does not meet the threshold for interference.

The Verdict

The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed. The order of the Additional District Judge (FTC) No. 3, Kamrup (Metro), dated 28.05.2025, setting aside the temporary injunction, was upheld. However, for the ends of justice, the Court directed that the respondents, while continuing to use the name "Purvottar Simanta Railway Karmachari Sangh" during the pendency of Title Suit No. 633/2024, must clearly indicate their affiliation with Bharatiya Railway Mazdoor Sangha (BRMS). The petitioners’ union, affiliated with BJMS, shall retain the right to use the same name with the suffix "(BJMS)". No costs were awarded.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Article 227 Is Not a Second Appeal

• Practitioners must not file Article 227 petitions merely to challenge adverse interim orders; such remedies are barred unless perversity or illegality is demonstrable.
• Courts will not entertain revision petitions seeking to reappreciate evidence or substitute their view for that of the lower court.
• The burden is on the petitioner to show that the lower court’s order was so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have reached it.

Temporary Injunctions in Trade Union Disputes

• Documentary evidence - registration, audit reports, affiliation letters - carries decisive weight in establishing prima facie title.
• Oral claims of leadership, especially by retired employees, are insufficient without constitutional or electoral backing.
• Courts will not grant injunctions to prevent use of a name where both parties claim legitimacy; instead, they may impose disclosure conditions to avoid public confusion.

Procedural Compliance in Appellate Evidence

• Introduction of new documents at the appellate stage without invoking Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is irregular and may be disregarded.
• Courts will not uphold orders based on evidence improperly introduced, but will not set aside the entire order if the error is not material to the outcome.