AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru, J.—The Petitioner is a Trade Union. It had filed thepresent writ petition, seeking to challenge an orderdated 27.08.2010 passed by the second RespondentDirector General (Personnel), Engineer-in-Chief Branch,New Delhi.
When the matter came up on 23.09.2010, thisCourt directed private notices to be issued to theRespondents and an interim stay was granted. Subsequently, the interim stay came to be extended fromtime to time.
On notice from this Court, the thirdRespondent had filed a counter affidavit dated20.04.2011.
It is the case of the Petitioner that they area registered Trade Union with Registration No. 1183/VLR. They also affiliated their trade union with the All IndiaFederation known as Indian Trade Union Congress (forshort I.N.T.U.C.) The Respondents have notified electionin respect of allotment of seats in the JointConsultative Machinery (JCM) fora. The original electionnotification fixed the election on 03.02.2010 by secretballot and the unions were allotted election symbols. It was found that one of the trade union federation,AIDEF, complained regarding the discrepancies in theprinting of ballot papers. A hearing was conducted on29.07.2010 and the procedural lapse found was admitted. Therefore, re-election was ordered to be held in the CWE(Navy), Chennai/Arakkonam Unit. It is this impugnedcommunication dated 27.08.2010 ordering re-election,which is under challenge in this writ petition.
Pursuant to the notice ordering for re�election, the Petitioner Union sent a representationdated 03.09.2010 to the first Respondent stating that re-election has been ordered without any notice or without consultation and it has been done to cover up the lapse and to satisfy the other Federation.
In the counter affidavit filed by the third Respondent, these allegations were denied. In paragraphs 6 and 7 of the counter affidavit, it was averred as follows:
I state that the hearing was conductedin the presence of representatives of allthe Federations and Units and the decisionto conduct re-elections was taken afterhearing all members present and theproceedings have also been duly signed bythe members present. Moreover, thedecision to hold re-elections wascommunicated to all federations along withcomprehensive instructions by the 2nd Respondent vide No. B/20851/P/E1C(2)/1dated 27.08.2010, which is under challengeherein.
7.I state that the decision to hold re�elections were taken only after holding ahearing and coming to a finding that therewere certain procedural lapses in theArakkonam/Chennai Unit and not for anyother reason as claimed by the Petitioner. The said decision was also intimated toall Federations and Units along with theschedule for the election. It is incorrect to state that re-elections have beenordered only in the Arakkonam Unit and there-elections have been ordered only as perthe instructions of the Ministry ofDefence.
First of all, in the present case, theelections are held only for the purpose of nominatingseats in the JCM and it is not based upon any statutoryrules framed. In the absence of any legal or enforceableright, it is not clear as to how such a writ petition ismaintainable. The only allegation raised by thePetitioner that they were not heard was also stoutlydenied by the third Respondent. The Petitioner had alsonot impleaded the other trade Union, which is a party tothe election. In a matter of this nature, such a writpetition cannot be admitted as held by the Division Bench of this Court in K.V. Sridharan and S. Ragupathy Vs. S. Sundaramoorthy and The Principal Chief Postmaster General, . Though it is pointedout that the said judgment was distinguished in asubsequent judgment in All India Postal Employees Union -Group C, Tiruvannamalai v. Chief Post Master General,Chennai and Ors. reported in (2011) 1 MLJ 1229, this Court is unable to agree with the view taken by the learned Judge.
The Division Bench dealt with the case whereit was recorded that in the State of Tamil Nadu, there isno law relating to grant of recognition for a trade Unionand therefore, the question of entertaining writ petitionat the instance of private parties will not arise. Thesaid Division Bench judgment was got over in thesubsequent judgment by stating that the Division Benchdid not deal with elections to be held for the CWC. Itwill not be applicable in a case where results of theelections to a Central Working Committee was underchallenge. Therefore, a writ petition will lie againstthe department not to accept the results passed by aCentral Working Committee of Trade Union. It is ratherunfortunate such a distinction should be made especiallywhen there is a binding judgment of the Division bench,wherein, the law has been clearly laid down. The sumand substance of the judgment of the Division Bench isthat in the absence of any law for trade unionrecognition in the State, the Court cannot be saddledwith disputes regarding elections, either an inter seelection dispute or a dispute between the Union on theone hand and the government department on the other hand. The binding precedent of the judgment of the Division Bench in Sridharan''s case (cited supra) will have to befollowed. Further, in this case all the parties to the election have also been consulted and because of the procedural lapse, re-poll was reordered.
In the light of the above, the writ petitionstands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connectedmiscellaneous petition stands closed.