AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Tamilvanan, J.—The Writ Appeal in W.A. No. 2333 of 2003 has been preferred against the order, dated 09.04.2003 passed by the
learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 20598 of 2000, whereby it has been held that there is no impediment on the part of the appellant herein, who
was the respondent in the writ petition, to verify the application submitted by the respondent, on the ground that the reasoning given by the
appellant, by order, dated 29.06.2000 could not be sufficient to non-suit the respondent, from seeking the relief, as prayed for in their applications.
With the above observation, the appellant herein was directed to process the application, dated 29.12.1998 filed by the respondent, as being done
in other cases and keep it pending and pass appropriate orders, as per the outcome of the result of the writ petitions in W.P.Nos.4704 to 4707 of
1999.
The writ petition in W.P. No. 20598 of 2000 was filed by the petitioner Union, who is the respondent in the writ appeal, seeking to issue a writ
of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records of the order of the appellant/respondent in Letter No. 13-36/2000/SR, dated 29.05.2000 and
the consequential order, dated 15.09.2000 and quash the same and also to direct the respondent therein to grant recognition to the petitioner
union, based on the application, dated 29.12.1998.
It is seen that the respondent herein as petitioner in the writ petition has averred that he is the General Secretary of the respondent''s union,
having object to ventilate the grievances and demands of the Extra Departmental Agents of the Postal Department. It is further stated that the Extra
Departmental Employees have decided to form an independent forum to discuss their problems with the Government and to get the
recommendations being implemented and accordingly, with the said object, the Union submitted an application to get recognition from the
Government of India (Postal Department). According to the respondent, their union is having membership in the Tamil Nadu Region, which is more
than 10% of the total strength of the Extra Departmental Agents of India as a whole and submitted all the proposals and applied for recognition to
the appellant herein on 29.12.1998 and certain defects were sought to be rectified and the same were complied with, as directed by the appellant.
The respondent has submitted that the defects pointed out by the appellant were rectified and the proposal was re-submitted for consideration,
however, the appellant did not pass any order. But by order, dated 12.01.2000, the appellant intimated that the status of the Unions, after expiry
of two years period of recognition is under consideration and till such time, re-verification process for the purpose of recognition of
Unions/Associations is kept in abeyance.
Then, the respondent/petitioner was informed by order, dated 29.06.2000, that the last date was 31.05.2000 for submitting application for
participation in the verification process for the purpose of recognition under EDA (RA) Rules, 1995. The application of the respondent was
received after the due date, that is on 21.06.2000 and thereby negated that the respondent could not be allowed to participate in the verification
process for the time being, since the application was submitted after the last date. The said order was challenged in the writ petition. The
respondent herein had sought for an order to quash the order passed by the appellant herein and to direct the appellant to grant recognition to the
respondent union, based on the application of the respondent, dated 29.12.1998. As per the impugned order, under challenge, there was no total
rejection of the respondent''s application and the order was passed only for the time being, since the appellant had expressed inability to accept the
application for verification process after the due date.
Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent in the writ petition submitted that batch of writ petitions in W.P. Nos. 4704 to 4707 of 1999
etc., were pending before this Court with regard to the same issue as to the recognition sought for by several other unions, like that of the petitioner
and interim orders were passed in those writ petitions. In support of the same, copies of certain interim orders passed by this Court in the earlier
writ petitions were produced. It has been found by the learned Single Judge that in none of the interim orders, as stated by the learned Counsel for
the appellant herein, the date 31.05.2000 was stated to be the crucial date and in one of the order, dated 30.08.1999, this Court passed an order
to the effect that ''the verification process may go on and the result may be published after getting permission from this Court''. In the above
circumstances, the learned Single Judge, has directed to process the application of the respondent, dated 29.12.1998, as being done in the other
cases.
W.P. No. 4704 of 1999 has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Bharatiya Postal Employees Union against Union of
India, Ministry of Communications, New Delhi and others to call for the records of the Director (Staff Relations), Department of Posts, Dak
Bhavan, New Delhi � 110 001, the fourth respondent herein pertaining to Communication No. 13-31/98 SR, dated 09.02.1999 together with
Communication No. SR/1-11/98-99, dated 12.02.1999 of the Chief Post-Master General, Tamil Nadu Circle, Chennai, the fifth respondent
herein and quash the said order, by an order of Certiorarified Mandamus and direct the respondents to set the verification process in motion, either
by secret ballot or by entrusting the task of scrutinizing the option/authorization forms given by the Class III Employees of the Postal Department
by an independent officer in the rank of Divisional Superintendent in the matter of deciding the representative capacity of the Unions are
concerned.
W.P. No. 4705 of 1999 has been filed by Bharatiya RMS/MMS Employees Union against the respondents, seeking similar orders in the nature
of Certiorarified Mandamus.
W.P. No. 4706 of 1999 has been filed by Bharatiya Postal Employees Union against the respondents, seeking similar orders in the nature of
Certiorarified Mandamus.
W.P. No. 4707 of 1999 has been filed by Bharatiya Postal Administrative Officer''s Employees Union, Group C and D against the respondents,
seeking similar relief, by way of issuance of an order of Certiorarified Mandamus.
In the Grounds of appeal, the appellant herein has stated that the writ petitions are not legally maintainable, on the ground that the application,
dated 29.12.1998 had been submitted by the respondent Union, which could not be considered for the year 2000. The appellant has further stated
that the application of the respondent union, dated 17.06.2000 was received by the Appellant Department only on 21.06.2000, much after the
cut-off date, 31.05.2000, though the verification process of the Appellant Department had already been over, pursuant to the notification of the
interim order passed in W.P.Nos.4704 to 4707 of 1999. According to the appellant, the application, dated 29.12.1998 submitted by the
respondent could not be processed practically, as the verification process had already been over. The appellant has further stated that the
respondent union had not submitted their application for recognition within the prescribed time limit, the same was not considered in the impugned
order passed in the writ petition. The appellant has stated that the last date for submitting application was 31.05.2000, however, the application of
the respondent union was received only on 21.06.2000, much after the cut-off date, hence, the writ petition filed by the respondent/petitioner is not
legally sustainable.
In W.P. No. 20598 of 2000, All India Rural Postal Employees Union, the petitioner therein has sought an order to issue a writ of certiorarified
mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order of the respondent, who is the appellant herein in Letter No. 13-36/2000/SR, dated
29.05.2000 and quash the said order and the consequential order, dated 15.09.2000 and also direct the appellant in W.A. No. 2333 of 2003 to
grant recognition to the respondent union, based on the alleged application, dated 29.12.1998. The learned single Judge, by the impugned order,
dated 09.04.2003, directed the appellant herein to process the application, dated 29.12.1998, as being done in the other cases and keep it
pending and pass appropriate orders, as per the outcome of the result of the writ petitions in W.P.Nos.4704 to 4707 of 1999.
In the writ petition in W.P. No. 4704 of 1999, Bharatiya Postal Employees Union, the petitioner therein, has sought relief, by way of issuing a
writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records, relating to the fourth respondent, Director (Staff Relations), Department of Posts, Dak
Bhavan, New Delhi � 110 001, pertaining to Communication No. 13-31/98 SR, dated 09.02.1999 together with Communication No. SR/1-
11/98-99, dated 12.02.1999 of the Chief Post-Master General, Tamil Nadu Circle, Chennai, the fifth respondent herein and quash the said order
and also direct the respondents to set in motion the verification process , either by secret ballot or by entrusting the task of scrutinizing the
option/authorization forms given by the Class III Employees of the Postal Department by an independent officer of the rank of Divisional
Superintendent in the matter of deciding the representative capacity of the Unions concerned.
In the writ petitions, W.P. No. 4705 of 1999 filed by Bharatiya RMS/MMS Employees Union, W.P. No. 4706 of 1999 filed by Bharatiya
Postal Employees Union, W.P. No. 4707 of 1999 filed by Bharatiya Postal Administrative Officer''s Employees Union, Group C and D, have
sought for similar orders, to quash the order passed by the fourth and the fifth respondents and direct all the respondents to set in motion the
verification process , either by secret ballot or by entrusting the task of scrutinizing the option/authorization forms given by the Class III Employees
of the Postal Department by an independent officer of the rank of Divisional Superintendent in the matter of deciding the representative capacity of
the Unions concerned.
Ms. R. Vaigai, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 7 and 8 submitted that in the matter of the recognition of trade unions,
verification of the applications and the details furnished therein are necessary factors, however, secret ballot method cannot be adopted for the
same. In support of her contention, the learned Counsel cited a Three Judge Bench Decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court in, Association of
Engineering Workers v. Dockyard Labour Union and Ors., 1995 Supp (4) SCC 544 , wherein the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held as follows :
...Even if the method of secret ballot is restored with the consent of parties and care has been taken to see that only those employees who had
put in more than six months of service were allowed to cast their preference for the purpose of determining allegiance that was not a proper
method for verification of the condition required for recognition u/s 11 and hence, it was a method which was clearly alien to the statute....
In the grounds of appeal, the appellant has stated that the application of the respondent, All India Rural Postal Employees union, dated
29.12.1998 for recognition of the union could not be considered for the year 2000 and the application of the respondent, dated 17.06.2000,
which was received by the appellant department only on 21.06.2000, much after the cut-off date, 31.05.2000. On the date of receipt of the
application on 21.06.2000, verification process of the appellant department had been over, pursuant to the modification of the interim order,
passed in W.P. Nos. 4704 to 4707 of 1999. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, having found that the impugned order
is not the one totally rejecting the application of the respondent union, but was only for the time being and also considering the inability expressed
by the appellant that the verification process could not be complied with, after the cut off date, the writ petition should have been dismissed by the
learned single Judge. Mr. S. Udayakumar, SCGSC, learned Counsel for the appellant mainly submitted his argument that the verification process
of applications had already been over. Though the last date for the submission of the application for the participation in the verification process was
31.05.2000, the appellant had submitted the application, only after the said date. The application was received only on 21.06.2000, after the cut
off date, 31.05.2000. Therefore, the verification process was practically not possible by the appellant.
Mr. V. Prakash, learned senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioners submitted that all the petitioner unions are trade unions, registered
under the Trade Union Act. The Class III (Group C) staff working in the postal department, all over India are the members in the union. Prior to
1997, the postal department recognised the service association/unions. Originally, there was existence of Central Service Rules (Recognition of
service association) 1959. Till 1997, the petitioner was the union recognized by the respondent postal department representing Class III (Group
C) employees of the postal department, however, the rules were superceded by the Central Service (Recognition of service association) Rules,
1993. The Government of India purported to have brought the same into force by virtue of the powers vested in the President of India, under
Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The recognition and concomitant privileges and facilities are afforded only to service associations/unions
and not the employees. Rule 4 of the recognition rules extended the life time to existing recognised service associations/unions for particular
period/periods, subject to the condition that they should follow the procedures prescribed under the relevant rules for getting recognition as per the
Recognition Rules 1993.
It is submitted that Rule 5 of the Recognition Rules prescribe conditions for recognition of service associations, ''inter alia'', it specifies that
service associations should be restricted to a distinct category of Government service having common interest and sub Clause d(i) of Rule 5
prescribes, ""The association represents minimum 35% of total number of category of employees, provided that where there is only one association
which commands more than 35% membership, although, an association having less than 35% may also be recognised, if it commands at least 15%
membership; Rule 6 provides the condition, subject to which recognition is continued and Rule 7 provides for the verification of membership. In
order to determine the representative character on the capacity of the service association, operating in the Government Departments, check-off
system in pay rolls at such intervals and in such a manner as the Government may pass orders, prescribing conditions, resort to on account of the
haphazard and methods adopted by the respondents in making verification and as such, the petitioner unions were declared to have lost their
representative capacity to represent Class III employees in 1997 and that Rule 8 of the Recognition Rules provides for the withdrawal of
Recognition.
The writ petitioners have challenged the communication of the fourth respondent as arbitrary, irregular and untenable. The learned Counsel
appearing for the writ petitioners mainly contended that the present method of entrusting option/authorization forms to the drawing and disbursing
officer and allowing them to decide as to which union the employees belong to is highly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the drawing and disbursing officers are also being members of their union/association
and may seek to divert option forms in favour of the union/association to which they belong and in which they are members. The impugned
communication is challenged on the ground that it does not constitute an independent, impartial, election machinery to decide the representative
capacity and character of the unions concerned and further contended that the check off system has lost its appeal and so the secret ballot system
is found to be a full proof method. Even if check off system were to be continued as per Rule, the custody of option/authorization forms must be
with an impartial higher rank officer like Divisional Superintendent and he must decide the membership of the employees based on such
option/authorization letter and the same should not be left to disbursing officers, who have their own leanings towards their unions/associations in
which they are members.
It was further contended that in the postal department, the employees are given option/authorization forms by more than one union, who
participate in the exercise, which is making a mess of the system. The next point raised by the learned Senior Counsel is that the impugned order
cuts the root of the maintenance of ''secrecy"" in the matter of ascertaining the decision of the employees, as to which of the unions/associations they
belong to and ultimately in deciding as to which union/association has the representative capacity, as contemplated under Rule 5(d)(i) of the
Recognition Rules 1993. To over come the practical difficulties, it was suggested that verification process could be done by an officer of the
Divisional Superintendent and after having collected the option/authorization forms from the employees themselves and scrutinize the same in the
presence of one representative from each of the unions and forward the same to the fifth respondent, otherwise there would be chaos and
confusions in the matter of deciding the representative capacity and character of the unions concerned.
A Division Bench of this Court in the decision, The Southern Railway Mazdoor Union v. The Railway Board and Ors. reported in 2004 2
L.W.407, has held that the right to form Trade Union is not merely a statutory right, under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, but after coming into force
of the Constitution of India, a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution. The Trade Unions Act does not prohibit
simultaneous membership in an unlimited number of unions, which is wholly irrelevant for the purpose of according recognition. Recognition is not a
right guaranteed to all unions registered under the Trade Unions Act. The Trade Unions Act does not deal with recognition. It does not either
require or prohibit the employer from giving recognition to unions registered under the Act.
A Division Bench of this Court, in an unreported judgment in W.A. Nos. 923 and 924 of 2005, dated 03.08.2005, has held that in pursuance
of the Notification, where 11 unions have contested/participated for the second verification, which was held on 01.12.2004 and each union, so
contested in the said election had to canvass for the union and the first respondent, Chairman and Managing Director, BSNL had to take into
consideration the number of votes polled individually and not collectively for the purpose of recognition. By the impugned orders therein, it was
declared that the third respondent/BSNL Employees Union was the majority representative union for a period of two years from the date of
Notification therein. The third respondent union therein had secured 1,39,827 votes as against 1,00,226 votes secured by the petitioner union
therein. Hence, the third respondent union was rightly declared as majority representative union. Relying on the decision, All India State Bank
Officers Federation and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, and Chairman, State Bank of India and Another Vs. All Orissa State Bank
Officers Association and Another, , the Division Bench of this Court confirmed the order passed by the Chairman and Managing Director, BSNL.
In the decision, Balmer Lawrie Workers'' Union, Bombay and Another Vs. Balmer Lawrie and Co. Ltd. and Others, , the Hon''ble Apex
Court has held that Section 20(2) of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, which
confers an exclusive right to represent workmen of any undertaking of an union which acquires the status of a recognised union under 1971 Act
and simultaneously denies the right to a workman to appear or act or to be allowed to represent in any proceeding under the Industrial Dispute
Act, 1947, which is not violative of fundamental right to form association guaranteed by Article 19(1)(c).
Constitutional Bench of the Hon''ble Apex Court in the decision, A.K. Kraipak and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, has held that
Administrative Authority like a selection Board should follow principles of natural justice, however, it was brought to light, while selection was
made by the board, one of the members of which had been a candidate. The special selection board constituted under Regulation 3 of Indian
Forest Service (Recruitment) Rules (1966) framed under Rule 3 of Indian Forest Service (Recruitment) Rules (1996). Admittedly one of the
members of the board himself was a candidate for selection, though he had not taken part in the deliberations of the board and also at the time of
his own selection, he had taken part through out while making selection of other candidates, including his rival candidates, who were appearing
before the Selection Board, hence, there was conflict between his personal interest and official duty. In such circumstances, the Hon''ble Apex
Court held that there is likelihood of bias, hence, selection list prepared by the said board under Regulation 5 is violative of principles of natural
justice and the final recommendations made by UPSC was also held to be vitiated. In the decision, the Hon''ble Apex Court has held at page
number 156 as follows :
...The concept of natural justice has undergone a great deal of change in recent years. In the past it was thought that it included just two rules,
namely (1) no one shall be a judge in his own cause (Nemo debet esse judex propriacausa), and (2) no decision shall be given against a party
without affording him a reasonable hearing (audi alteram partem). Very soon thereafter a third rule was envisaged and that is that quasi-judicial
enquiries must be held in good faith, without bias and not arbitrarily or unreasonably. But in the course of years many more subsidiary rules came
to be added to the rules of natural justice. Till very recently it was the opinion of the courts that unless the authority concerned was required by the
law under which it functioned to act judicially there was no room for the application of the rules of natural justice. The validity of that limitation is
not questioned. If the purpose of the rules of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice one fails to see why those rules should be made
inapplicable to administrative enquiries from quasi-judicial enquiries. Enquiries which were considered administrative at one time are now being
considered as quasi-judicial in character. Arriving at a just decision is the aim of both quasi judicial enquiries as well as administrative enquiries....
In the instant case, the learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioners relied on the decision of the Constitutional Bench referred to above
and submitted that the drawing officers, entrusted with the work are personally interested in the work of verifying the application, as they are
members in any one of the unions/associations and in such circumstances, there is a likelihood of bias while discharging their official duties and
therefore, an independent officer in the cadre of Divisional Superintendent be entrusted with the basic task of scrutinizing the option/authorisation
forms given by the Class-III employees of the postal department in the matter of deciding the representative capacity of the unions are concerned.
In the light of the ruling of the Constitutional Bench of the Hon''ble Apex Court, we are of the view that the aforesaid arguments advanced by
the learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioners are legally sustainable
The Hon''ble Supreme Court in the decision, Chairman, State Bank of India and Another Vs. All Orissa State Bank Officers Association and
Another, , has held that neither the majority unions nor the minority unions have the right of representation in case of individual grievance. Though
there is no common law right to any trade union to represent its members, whether for the purpose of collective bargaining or individual grievances
of its members. There is an inroad made under the common law only by special statutes. Either the special statute operates proprio vigore, or it
does not. It is undisputed that Rule 24(a) of the Verification Rules on which reliance has been placed has no binding effect. Nonetheless, on
general principles of equity, justice and fair play, it has been held that the minority trade union should also be afforded with an opportunity of
ventilating individual grievances of its members, as per Rule 24 of the Rules for Verification of Membership and Recognition of Trade Unions
Rules, 1994. In the said judgment, at page number 613, it has been held as follows:
In our view, the contention urged by the Counsel for the review petitioner has merit and need acceptable. There is no common law right of a
trade union to represent its members, whether for purposes of collective bargaining or individual grievances of members. This is an inroad made
into the common law by special statutes. Either, the special statute operates proprio vigore, or it does not. In the situation before us, it is
undisputed that Rule 24(a) on which the respondent Association and the High Court placed reliance, has no application. This is accepted even in
the judgment under review. Nonetheless, on general principles of equity, justice and fair play the judgment under review holds that the minority
trade union should also be afforded an opportunity of ventilating individual grievances of its members.
The respondent in the writ appeal has stated that their Union/Association, by name, All India Rural Postal Employees Union had submitted its
application, dated 29.12.1998. According to the appellant, the application, dated 29.12.1998 could not be processed, as the verification is for the
year 2000. As contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, the application that had been submitted on 29.12.1998 could not be
considered for the verification in the year 2000.
In the writ petition in W.P. No. 20598 of 2000, the petitioner has sought for an order to quash the order of the appellant in Letter No. 13-
36/2000/SR, dated 29.06.2000 and the consequential order, dated 15.09.2000 and direct the respondent therein to grant recognition to the
petitioner union, based on the application, dated 29.12.1998. The letter, dated 29.06.2000 in Letter No. 13-36/2000/SR has been sent by the
Government of India, Ministry of Communication, Department of Posts, which reads as follows:
I am directed to refer to your letter No. nil, dated 17.06.2000 on the above subject and to state that the last date for submission of application for
participation in the verification process for the purpose of recognition under EDA (RA) Rules-1995 was 31.05.2000. Your application has been
received after due date i.e., on 21.06.2000. It is regretted to say that your Association cannot be allowed to participate in the verification process
this time.
The Letter, dated 15.09.2000 is only a consequential communication, referring the earlier letter, dated 29.06.2000.
The appellant has categorically stated that the last date for the submission of the application for participation in the verification process for the
purpose of recognition, under EDA (RA) Rules 1995 was 31.05.2000, but the application was received from the respondent/petitioner in the writ
appeal, only on 21.06.2000 after the cut off date. Even in the letter, the appellant has specifically stated that the respondents letter was dated
17.06.2000 and was received only on 21.06.2000, after the cut off date.
The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant drew the attention of this Court to the Official Memorandum, dated 01.05.2000 in No. 13-
34/98-SR issued by the Ministry of Communication, Department of Posts, New Delhi, wherein at paragraph number 3, it is stated as follows:
All eligible unions/associations intending to participate in the verification process for recognition (including those who had applied earlier) should
submit their applications complete in all respects and accompanied by following documents to SR Section of this department latest by 31.05.2000.
i. Memorandum of Associations.
ii. Constitution/bye-laws of the Association.
iii. List of office bearers and
iv. Estimated membership of the Association.
There is no material made available on the part of the respondent/writ petitioner in the writ appeal to show that the application was sent prior
to the cut off date, 31.05.2000. Therefore, as contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, since the application had been sent
long after the last date (cut off date), it is not practically possible for the appellant to process the application for the purpose to accord recognition
to the association.
On a perusal of the material papers available, we are of the considered view that the respondent union had sent its application for the
verification process only after the last date as contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant. Though the last date was 31.05.2000, the
application, dated 17.06.2000 was sent only on 21.06.2000.The application, dated 29.12.1998 could not be taken into consideration for the year
2000. Therefore, the relief sought for in the writ petition to quash the order of the appellant in Letter No. 13-36/2000/SR, dated 29.06.2000 and
the consequential order, dated 15.09.2000 and to direct the appellant to grant recognition to the respondent/petitioner union, based on the
application, dated 29.12.1998 are not legally sustainable.
As found by the learned single Judge, the impugned order in the writ petition is not the one totally rejecting the respondent''s application, but
only for the time being, since the application was not submitted before the cut off date and the reasons given by the appellant expressing the
inability not to accept the application for verification process, after the cut off date is also acceptable and therefore, we are of the view that the writ
appeal in W.A. No. 2333 of 2003 has to be allowed and the impugned order, dated 09.04.2003 passed by the learned single Judge has to be set
aside.
In the light of the decision rendered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in Association of Engineering Workers v. Dockyard Labour
Union and Ors., 1995 Supp (4) SCC 544 , the plea of the petitioners to have secret ballot in the process of recognition of trade unions cannot be
accepted. However, in the decision rendered by Constitution Bench of the Hon''ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1970 SC 150 (cited supra), it
has been categorically held that even in case of discharging quasi judicial duty, there should be no bias on the part of the deciding authorities. In the
instant case, it is not in dispute that the applications are scrutinized by drawing officers, who are also members in any one of the unions. In such
circumstances, there is a likelihood of acting on bias, so as to show some favouritism in favour of certain unions against the interest of other unions
and therefore, we are of the considered view that the task to be entrusted to an independent officer in the rank of Divisional Superintendent, as
submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of and the impugned order, dated
12.02.1999 passed by the fifth respondent is set aside.
The plea of the writ petitioners in W.P. Nos. 4704, 4705, 4706 and 4707 of 1999, for secret ballot cannot be accepted, in view of the
decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court reported in 1995 Supp (4) SCC 544 (cited supra). However, in the light of the ratio laid down by the
Constitution Bench of the Hon''ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1970 SC 150 (cited supra), we direct the respondents, in order to follow and
maintain principles of natural justice, to entrust the verification process towards recognition of the trade unions, to an independent officer in the rank
of Divisional Superintendent and scrutinize the option/authorization forms in the presence of one representative from each of the unions.
Since the impugned order in the writ petition relates to the year 1999, there could be lot of changes in the membership of the unions, on
account of retirement and fresh appointments in the cadre of employees, who are eligible to be members of any union and therefore, in the interest
of justice, the respondents to the writ petitions are directed to issue fresh notification towards the recognition of trade unions, as per relevant Rules
and decide the same within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
With the above observations, the writ appeal in W.A. No. 2333 of 2003 is dismissed and the writ petitions are disposed of. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No order as to costs.