Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Employees Union and Another vs Commissioner of Labour, Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others

S.R. Nayak, J.

W.P. No. 20642 of 1994

The petitioner in W.P. No. 20642 of 1994 is the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Employees Union bearing Registration No. 1104. In this writ petition it has called in question the validity and legality of the action of the second respondent-Andhra Pradesh Electricity Board, for short, the Board, dated 22-10-1994 according recognition to the respondents 3 and 4 Unions, namely, the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board Employees Union and Telugu Nadu Vidyuth Karmika Sangh. Writ Petition No. 21744 of 1994 is field by the United Electricity Employees Union calling in question the validity of the order dated 31-10-1994 passed by the Chief Returning Officer and Joint Commissioner of Labour, Government of Andhra Pradesh, rejecting its claim to participate in the verification ballot to find out the Union enjoying the support of majority of workmen.

Few facts which are necessary to be noted for the purpose of disposal of these two writ petitions are : on 26-9-1989 verification ballot was held and in that ballot the petitioner Union in W.P. No. 20642/94 was recognised as collective bargaining agent in the second respondent Board for a period of two years or till the next verification ballot, whichever was earlier. Subsequently verification ballot was not held in time and even the maximum period of two years fixed by the Board while according recognition also expired on 30-12-1991. It seems that for some or the other reason verification ballot could not be held immediately after the expiry of two years and when the Labour Department initiated proceedings in the month of January, 1993 to hold fresh verification ballot, the petitioner Union in W.P. No. 21744/94 filed W.P. No. 13393 of 1993 in this Court claiming that the members of its Union have a right of participate in the verification ballto and the right of participation was denied to them by the Chief Returning Officer and Joint Commissioner of Labour. They sought a direction to the Chief Returning Officer to permit the members of its Trade Union to participate in the election process. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by its order dt. 31-8-1994 directing the Chief Returning Officer to hear the petitioner Union and consider its claim and to pass a speaking order. Thereafterwards, the Chief Returning Officer and Joint Commissioner of Labour by his proceedings dt. 31-10-1994 for the reasons stated by him in the said proceedings rejected the claim of the United Electricity Employees Union. As already pointed out, against the said order the said Union has field W.P. No. 21744 of 1994.

Since there was deadlock among the Trade Unions to represent the interest of workmen in the industry, the second respondent Board by its proceedings dated 22-10-1994 recognised the A.P. Electricity Employees Union, the A.P. Electricity Board Employees Union and Telugu Nadu Viduth Karmika Sangh for the purpose of collective bargaining pending holding of verification ballot. The said order is question by the A.P. State Electricity Employees Union.

Writ Petition No. 21744 of 1994

The Petitioner Union consists of not only employees employed by the Board but also workers employed by the Agents and Contractors engaged by the Board to carry out its work as its members. There is no dispute among the Trade Unions regarding participation of such of the members of the petitioner Union who are employees of the Board in the proposed verification ballot. The other rival Trade Unions object to the participation of only those members of the petitioner Union who are employed by the Agents and Contractors of the Board on the ground that there is no relationship of employer and employee between the Board and such members.

Shri P. Venkateswarlu, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Union in W.P. No. 21744 of 1994, firstly contended that all the members of the petitioner Union satisfy the definition of ''worker'' as defined u/s 2(1) of Factories Act, 1948 and therefore, the names of all those members are required to be included in the muster roll as per the provisions of Section 62 of the Factories Act read with Rule 103 of the Andhra Pradesh Factories Rules and therefore electoral roll to be prepared by the Chief Returning Officer should reflect muster roll maintained u/s 62 of the Factories Act. In other words, according to him, names of all members of the petitioner Union should be included in the electoral roll for verification ballot. Elaborating his submission Mr. Venkateswarlu pointed out that after the remand of the proceedings by this Court in earlier W.P. No. 13393 of 1993, in the statement filed by the Union of specific contention was taken in that regard but unfortunately the Returning Officer and Joint Commissioner of Labour has not at all adverted to that contention and he has rejected the claim of the petitioner Union solely on the ground that there is no relationship of employer and employee between the members of the Union and the respondent Board and that issue was seized by the Industrial Court in I.D. No. 78/92. Therefore according to Sri Venkateswarlu, the impugned order suffers from an error apparent on the face of it and cannot be sustained in law.

I do not find any merit in the submission of the learned Counsel. It should be noted that collective bargaining is a diplomacy between the Capital and the Labour. The whole purpose of finding the Trade Union which represents the support of majority of workmen in an industry is to have an effective instrumentality enjoying confidence and trust of majority of workmen to bargain with the Capital in an industry. The only enactment which deals with and provides for the collective bargaining in industrial filed is Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and none other Act. It is pertinent to note that the Factories Act has nothing to do with the collective bargaining. The definition of ''worker'' as defined under the Factories Act is quite broad. It is true that the definition includes not only employees employed by the Management but also those who may work under the third party agents engaged by the factory Management or the contractors, it is true that the workers employed by the contractor or third party agents do come under the definition of ''worker'' u/s 2(1) of the Factories Act. The object of deafening ''worker'' in the Factories Act has an object behind it. It is defined so as to include the employees working under a contractor also in order to provide safety and conditions of work within the factory premises and that is the sole and limited object of defining the term ''worker'' in such a board why under the Factories Act. On the strength of that definition, the employees employed by the contractors cannot claim a right to participate in the verification of membership intended to find out the Trade Union which enjoys the support of majority of workmen employed by the management of the A.P. Electricity Board for the purpose of according recognition as a collective bargaining agent.

The Industrial Disputes Act, as pointed out supra, contemplates collective bargaining by way of mediation, negotiation and conciliation and for that purpose it has created authorities under the statute itself. The term ''workman'' is defined in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Now it is settled position in law that a Trade Union operating in an industry shall necessarily consist of only employees of such industry as its members. Since the Board is an ''industry'' and collective bargaining contemplated is under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, it is necessary to infer in the context that the employees who claim to have a right of participation in the process of electing the collective bargaining a gent have to satisfy the definition of the term ''workman'' as defined u/s 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. If that is kept in mind. I find no merit in the argument of Sri Venkateswarlu, the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly some of the members of that Union who seek participation in the proposed verification ballot and on whose behalf this writ petition is field by the Union are not workmen within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act. On the other hand, they are admittedly the employees employed either by contractors or third party agents engaged by the second respondent Board. Therefore they fall outside the definition of ''workman''. In other words, such employees cannot claim a right to participate in an electoral process intended to find out the Trade Union which enjoys the support of majority of workmen in the second respondent Board.

Added to this, the question whether the relationship between the members of the petitioner Union on whose behalf this writ petition is filed and the management of the second respondent Board is that of the employer and employees is seized by the Industrial Court in I.D. No. 7/92. Unless the Industrial Court records it finding on that issue in favour of the Union, its members cannot claim right of participation in the proposed verification ballot. On that short ground the writ petition should fail and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. However, it is clarified that this order shall not come in the way of such of the members of the petitioner Union who are ''workmen'' within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 participating in the proposed verification ballot to find out the Trade Union enjoying the support of the majority of workmen in the Board.

Writ Petition No. 20642 of 1994.

Adverting to other writ petition i.e. W.P. No. 20642/94 it may be noted that when this Court entertained that writ petition on 30-12-1994, it made an ex parte interim order directing the Board not to bargain with any of the three Trade Unions recognised by it will further orders. On service of notice when that order was sought to be vacated at the instance of some of the parties, the Court after hearing all the learned Counsel appearing for the parties on 31-3-1995 modified the earlier ex parte order dt. 30-12-1994 and directed the Board not to enter into any long-term settlement or settlement involving a major policy decision with any of the Trade Unions recognised by it till further orders. Further, it was directed that the said direction shall not come in the way of the Board to bargain with the Trade Unions as regard day-to-day affairs are concerned. It was submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the Government, the Board, the petitioner union in W.P. No. 20642/94 and the contesting respondents 3 and 4 Unions that the successive writ petitions field by the United Electricity Employees Union came in the way of holding verification ballot in time. Since the Court has already dismissed the writ petition filed by the said Union, the way is now paved to have a proper collective bargaining agent. Taken into account the totality of circumstances and facts-situation of the case and in the best interest of industrial relations in the second respondent Board, I think that ends of justice will be met by directing the Joint Commissioner of Labour to complete the process of verification ballot within a stipulated time and till then to permit the Electricity Board to bargain with three Unions which are tentatively recognised by the Board, vide its proceedings dt. 22.10.1994.

In the result and for the foregoing reasons I make the following order :

The writ petition No. 20642/94 is disposed of directing the Chief Returning Officer and Joint Commissioner of Labour, Government of Andhra Pradesh to hold verification ballot strictly in accordance with the provisions of Code of Discipline and to find out the Trade Union which enjoys the support of majority of workmen in the Board, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the facts and circumstances of the case the parties are directed to bear their own costs.

The Registry is directed to furnish a copy of the order to the learned Government Pleader forthwith.