AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sunil Ambwani, J.—Heard Shri Ajal Kumar Sharma, learned Counsel (or the petitioner, Shri K.P. Singh and Shri Govind Saran appear for the Railways.
The petitioner is a registered trade union, The Supreme Court, in Railway Board v. Southern Railway Mazdoor Union find others, SLP No. 3716 of 2004 decided on 8.3.2004, affirmed the judgment of the Madras High Court on which the Ministry of Railways decided to hold elections under the ''Secret Ballot System'' for giving recognition to a limited number of trade unions. A ''Secret Ballot Committee'' was constituted, which framed Modalities for procedure for conducting secret ballot.
It is alleged that the modalities stipulated that the registered union should geographically conform to the jurisdiction of the concerning Zonal General Manager, and the contesting unions should be registered prior to the creation of the North Central Railway Zone. The petitioner filed objections, on 25.10.2007 before the respondent No. 3 that the nomination papers filed by the other contesting unions are against the provisions of Ciause-2 (c) of the modalities and are liable to be, rejected. The respondent authorities however issued a list of valid nominations attaching proforma ballot papers, which shows that in the five columns, column No. 4 only uses abbreviation used by the unions (in Hindi).
It is alleged that the Returning Officer/mala fidely and in collusion with other contesting unions, in column No. 4 of the postal ballot related to the petitioner union, got printed a cross mark and the ballot paper with cross mark was printed in many newspapers, with caution that the votes may not be wasted by putting a stamp on ''Emgine'' as the votes shall not be valid. The petitioner filed objections for cancellation of the election but no order was passed and the election result was declared.
The petitioner has prayed for cancelling the entire elections and the communication by which recognition was granted only to North Central Railway Men''s Union.
Shri Govind Saran has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of railways stating in para-17 that after the scrutiny of nomination forms, it was found that petitioner union had marked against the abbreviation of local language (any)- ''X''. Therefore in the ballot paper the administration was bound to mark as ''X'' The representation dated 24.11.2007 is not available in the office record, The allegation, that an advertisement was made displaying the ballots, has not been denied.
The North Central Railways Karamchari Sangh secured 7998 votes as against 59568 valid votes polled out of total membership of 70499. It thus secured only 11.34% of the total electorate and 13.42% of the valid votes cast and was not found eligible for recognition.
I find substance in the contention of Shri Govind Saran that the fact, whether the voters were misled by the mark ''X'' which was put on the request of the petitioner in the nomination form, is a question of fact which can only be ascertained by taking evidence.
There are no material facts or particulars pleaded in the representation'' or in the writ petition alleging that the members of the union were misled or that the ballot papers misrepresented that the petitioner is not contesting the elections. The petitioner union has an ascertained membership. If there were some misleading advertisements in the newspapers, the petitioner could have advertised to clarify doubts. The petitioner himself gave the short form of the name of the union in Hindi and thus the nomination paper was accepted as it is. The question of cross mark in the ballot paper published in daily newspapers ''Amar Ujala'' is in the column of the proforma in Hindi and not on the column where the stamp had to be put,
There is absolutely nothing to show as to who had written the words that the voter may not waste his vole by putting a mark on ''Engine''. The writing by hand does not appear to be a part of the newspaper publication.
The petitioner did not secure the minimum number required for seeking recognition. There are no material particulars in the writ petition with regard to misleading the voters and in any case such a plea can only be considered after taking evidence.
The writ petition is dismissed.