AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.K. Khanna, C.J.-
This Miscellaneous Case No. 251/94 (in Civil Rule No. 58/94 of Agartala Bench) has come before a Division Bench of this Court in pursuance of an order passed on February 11, 1994 by a learned Single Judge in Civil Rule No. 58/1994 (of Agartala Bench) referring the case before the Division Bench as according to the learned Single Judge the case raised questions of law of general importance insofar as Employees'' Associations are concerned.
The brief controversy in the present case centers round the question as to whether the office bearers of the employees'' Associations mentioned in Annexure - ''I'' to the writ petition (Civil Rule No. 58/94) are entitled to the benefit of the Government policy as has been issued in form of a press note, vide Annexure - F to the Misc. Application (p. 192) to the effect that three office-bearers at State level, viz., President, Secretary and Treasurer, and two office-bearers, viz., President and Secretary of each recognised Association and its constituent unit (sub-divisional level) shall be exempted from general transfer, or not. According to the petitioners in the writ petition, all those office-bearers of the 64 Associations mentioned in Annexure I to the writ petition are entitled to tile aforesaid benefit and that the State Government is not extending these benefits to the office-bearers of the aforesaid 64 employees'' Associations and the action of the State Government, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, was mala fide.
In these cases, we have heard Mr. A. Roy, counsel appearing for the petitioners, in Civil Rule No. 58/94 (also in Misc. Case No. 251/94) and for the appellants in Writ Appeal No. 117/94 (arising out of Civil Rule No. 396/94 of Agartala Bench) and Mr. A.M. Lodh, counsel appearing for the appellant in the connected Writ Appeal (T) No. 574/94 (arising out of Civil Rule No. 305/1994 of Agartala Bench) as the questions of law arising in all these three connected cases are similar. We have heard Mr. A. Chakraborty, Advocate-General, State of Tripura, in all aforesaid three cases on behalf of the State-Respondent. Counsel for the parties have made statements that all these cases may be finally heard together.
Mr. A. Chakraborty, Advocate- General, State of Tripura, has at the very outset made a statement that the Government policy in the press note vide Annexure - F to the Misc. Application, as referred to above, is still operative and is being given effect to by the State Government in so far as the transfer of the State employees is concerned. It has however been contended that the aforesaid benefit has only been extended to the Associations which have been recognised by the State Government and its constituent units at the sub-divisional level. As far as the 64 Associations mentioned in Annexure - ''I'' to the writ petition in Civil Rule No. 58/94 (of Agartala Bench) as referred to above, it has been contended that at no point of time the State Government has given recognition to the 64 Associations and therefore the office bearers of these Associations who are now claiming the benefit of the Government policy as has been found in the press note vide Annexure F to the Misc. Application, are not entitled to the same.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in all the three connected cases have however contended before us that the State of Tripura is acting arbitrarily in the matter of recognising the Associations and even though the 64 Associations mentioned in Annexure T to the writ petition represent a substantial number of employees of various Departments of the State, the benefits of the press note is not being extended to them.
On. June 10, 1994 after hearing learned counsel for the parties at some length, we had passed the following order:-
"We have heard Mr. Chakraborty., learned Advocate-General, Tripura and Mr. Roy, counsel for the petitioner.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties we are of the opinion that the guideline on the basis of which the association of workers are being recognised including their units maybe spelt out by the State of Tripura. The State of Tripura may adjudicate on the claims of the 64 Associations which have been set up in Annexure - I to the writ petition and also the claim of the Association and their affiliated units (contained in Annexure - IV) in the light of the guidelines.
Mr. Chakraborty learned. Advocate-General, Tripura will seek instruction from the State of Tripura in connection with the direction given by this court in this order so that this court may indicate the time within which the State of Tripura can adjudicate on the matter indicated in this order.
Case will be listed again for further orders before this court on June 20, 1994 as a fixed item, : along with other connected case, i.e. Appeal No. 117/94.
A copy of this order may be given to the learned counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges today itself.
The interim order passed by this court shall remain operative till the next date fixed".
In pursuance of the order passed by this Court on June 10. 1994 as mentioned above, Mr. A. Chakraborty, learned Advocate-General. State of Tripura, placed before us the instructions received by him from the State Government of Tripura in regard to our order passed on June 10, 1994. The instructions are in writing and have been placed before us which will form part of the record of civil Rule No. 58/94 (of Agartala Bench) and the connected Misc. Case No. 251/94. A bare reading of the written instructions would disclose that no written guidelines exist at present for the recognition of Associations of employees and its constituent units.
From the written instructions, the stand of the State Government of Tripura is also clear. According to the Government if written rigid guidelines are evolved on the basis of numerical assessment, Government would have to derecognise those Associations which have become less representative over a period of time. In so far as the 64 Associations mentioned in Annexure - 1 to the writ petition, the specific stand taken by the State of Tripura is that the Associations whose names have been mentioned at Sl. No. 1 and Sl. No. 17, have already been recognised. In respect of the remaining 62 Associations, it has been stated that their cases will be considered in case they make individual applications for recognition with supporting documents and particulars.
Mr. Roy, Counsel appearing for the petitioners has however urged that even after the filing of the C.R. No. 58 of 1994 on February 1, 1994 recognition has been given by the State of Tripura on February 21, 1994 (Annexure - O to the Misc. application) to Tripura Employees Co-ordination Committee (H.G.B. Road). The aforesaid, Association which has been given recognition after the filing of the writ petition in C.R. No. 58/94 has been bifurcated from the parent Association i.e. Tripura Employees Coordination Committee. It has been strenuously urged before us that if there was no guideline on the basis of which recognition to the Association of employees had to be granted by the State of Tripura, the granting of recognition after the filing of the writ petition in Civil Rule No. 58/94 to the Tripura Employees Coordination Committee (H.G.B. Road) show that recognition to various Associations had been granted by the State of Tripura in an arbitrary manner without following any fixed guidelines for giving such recognition.
After considering the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the parties, it is thus clear that the State of Tripura is allowing benefit to the office bearers of Employees'' Associations which are recognised by the State Government.
The only question which remains for determination is as to whether while recognizing the Associations formed by employees of the State of Tripura, the State has to act on certain guidelines or it can act in any manner which it chooses. In this connection, it has also to be considered whether the recognition which has been granted to an employees'' Association will remain in continuation or whether the aforesaid recognition ought to be withdrawn by the State Government when it comes to its notice that the Association does not fulfill the conditions which are laid down for the purpose of granting recognition to any Association of employees. This question has arisen specially in view of the fact that in the written instructions, which have been submitted to us a specific point has been taken that the policy of that State of Tripura is not to derecognize any Association which may have even become less representative over a period of time. In our opinion the power which the State Government exercises for recognition of an employees'' Association is undoubtedly an administrative function! of the State Government. However, even though it may be an administrative function of the State Government, the same cannot be exercised in an arbitrary manner and the power of recognition which the State Government exercises has to be on the basis of specific guidelines. In the absence of any specific guidelines very serious results may ensure inasmuch as it cannot be ruled out that the State as an employer may sometimes for various reasons prefer one Association over the other. Such an exercise of power of the State Government cannot be permitted as it would clearly lead to discrimination as well as arbitrariness.
In our opinion, therefore, the State Government before proceeding to recognize any Association has first to evolve a definite guideline on the basis of which recognition of the Association of employees has to be given. We are also of the opinion that in case any association is not covered by the guideline which have been laid down by the Government at a later point of time, the State Government will have to consider the case of continuance of recognition of such an employees Association and in case it is found that the Association is not entitled to recognition as in view of the guidelines then in that case the recognition has to be withdrawn.
We are, thus of the opinion that the 62 remaining Associations of employees which are laying a claim before us may file written representations for being recognised by the State Government within a week from today along with the relevant documents on which they are placing reliance for the purpose of recognition. The State Government will first spell out the guidelines for recognizing an Association in writing and thereafter will consider the cases of the 62 Associations which are laying their claims before us for being recognised as Associations of employees, The State Government will simultaneously re-examine the cases of those Associations which have already been recognised in the light of guidelines which will be laid down by them and will pass fresh orders of recognition in respect of those Associations strictly in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the State Government and shall derecognise the Associations which do not conform to the guidelines laid down by the State Government. The State Government while passing orders of either recognising or de-recognising an Association rejecting any application for being recognized, as an employees'' Association, will consider the cases individually and will pass a reasoned order in each specific case indicating the ground on which either recognisation is being granted or is being refused and even in a case where as observed above a recognized Association is being derecognised or recognition is being continued. A copy of the order will be supplied immediately after the passing of the order to the concerned Association.
Mr. A. Chakraborty, learned Advocate General appearing for the State of Tripura has prayed before us that two months'' time be granted for that purpose to the State of Tripura. We are, however, of the opinion that this Court will not fix any time limit for adjudication of the aforesaid question by the State Government as in our opinion, the State Government looking to the administrative exigency of the situation in respect of the transfer of employees may even choose to decide the matter even earlier than two months. We are for that reason placing no time limit and it will be for the State of Tripura to take action in this matter expeditiously.
Mr. Chakraborty, Advocate-General, Tripura has also urged before us that because of the interim order passed by this court the entire transfer policy of the State Government has come to a stand still. In this connection, we may make it clear that it will be for the State of Tripura to decide the aforesaid matter as early as possible and as far as the petitioners are concerned, we have given only a week''s time to them for filing their representations and there is no reason as to why the State of Tripura should not decide this matter expeditiously and thereafter, implement its policy of transfer.
The interim order granted in Misc. Case No. 251/94 will remain in operation till the matter is finally disposed of by the State of Tripura as observed above.
Before parting, it may be observed that after the State of Tripura has adjudicated on the question of recognising, not recognizing and de-recognising an employees'' Association. It will thereafter also review the cases of those employees who are office bearers of the recognised employees'' Associations who may have already been transferred. This observation we are specifically making in view of the cases of appellant in W.A. No. 117/94 (Shri Promode Rn. Majumdar), Writ Appeal (T) No. 574 of 1994 (Shri Ratan Dutta) and other employees who are similarly situate who claimed that they are entitled to the benefit of the policy of the State of Tripura in respect of transfer inasmuch as they are office-bearers of employees Associations which are entitled to recognition by the State Government. If the State of Tripura ultimately finds that they are in fact office-bearers of any Association of employees which is entitled to recognition, the State of Tripura will take up the follow up action by cancelling their transfer orders so that the policy of transfer which they are following is also applied to the cases of the aforesaid appellants and other similarly situate persons.
Subject to the aforesaid observations, we are finally disposing of Misc. Case 251/94 (in Civil Rule No. 58/94) and Writ Appeal (T) No. 574 of 1994 and Writ Appeal No. 117/94. However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs.