AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Questioning the circular No.LB-11013/20/94-L.I(Vol.II), dated 23-4-1998, issued by the Ministry of Surface Transport (Labour Division), Government of India, introducing check off system to decide the majority union this writ petition was filed.
The main contention of the petitioner Union is that all through the trade unions are being recognised by the Port Trust Authority on the basis of the membership of each of the union under verification at random system. Now under the present system, each employee will be given an option form so as to enable him to nominate the union in which he wants to become a member and on the basis of the authorisation, monthly subscription payable by the employee to that union will be deducted from his salary and credited to the concerned trade union account.
The Counsel for the petitioner Union contends that the check off system that is sought to be introduced is defective and violative of democratic norms because:
Most of the workers being illiterate and unsophisticated one cannot exercise his option and choose the registered union.
Muscle power and Money power are hurdles. Vested interests are most likely to seize the formats from workers.
As there is no secrecy, there will be fraud and collusion between the union and management agencies to grab the formats.
By this system management definitely knows the membership of a particular worker in a union. There may be scope for victimisation also.
This system makes a strong union stronger and weak union weaker;
and as such the circular may be declared as illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional.
The Government in its counter categorically stated that the check off system was introduced after taking the views of the major Port Trusts, Dock Labour Boards Dock Workers Advisory Committee and also the representatives of 5 major Federations of Port and Dock Workers on Bipartite Wage Negotiations Committee, and there after the system was introduced in all the major ports in India and even in the Visakhapatnam Port Trust also the same was introduced and the results were given as hereunder :
Sl. No. Name of Union No. of Members %age of Union
The Visakhanatitam Port Employees Union 4245 50.78
The Visakhapatnam Harbour & Port Workers Union 2748 32.87
Port & Dock Employees Association 751 8.98
Janatha Port & Dock Employees Union 548 6.55
Visakhapatnam Port Shramik Panchayat 37 0.44
Visakha Port Trust Staff Association 29 0.34
Total 8358
In the counter it was also stated that out of 8358 forms issued by the Port Trust, the Port received 8729 and only 110 employees did not resubmit the forms issued by the Port and these 110 employees/ workers are not complaining against the Check Off System, which is now introduced.
At this stage the Counsel for the petitioner Union strenuously contended that it is not the case of the respondent Port Trust that only 110 employees did not support this scheme. But, the fact remains that none of the recognised 6 major unions did come before this Court questioning the Check Off System. In other words, 8729 employees working in the Visakhapatnam Port Trust have consented for implementation of this Check Off System. The fact of implementation of this system and the results published by the 1st respondent were not attacked by the petitioner in the reply filed by them. The 1st respondent Union in its counter supported the stand taken by the Central Government.
In the fight of the categorical statement made by the 2nd respondent that the Check Off System has been introduced in all the major Ports and they have not received any complaint from the workers, I cannot find fault with the system, i.e. Check Off System that was introduced now to recognise the trade unions functioning in the respondent organisation. Even on merits I do not find any substance in any of the objections raised by the petitioner Union. It is not the case of the petitioner union that if secret ballot system is introduced the sort of un-healthy practices alleged by the petitioner in the Check Off System will not be there. On the other hand, the system was introduced to see that the employees opt for one union only than taking membership in different unions. It is also the case of the petitioner union that if Check Off System is introduced, the management will have a say in getting an union of its choice declared as recognised union by using force and coercion on the employees and it may also resort to victimisation of the employees if they opt for the membership of the union which is not in their good-looks. It is more a hypothetical argument than with any substance. If the management wants to interfere with the trade union activities, whether it is secret ballot or Check Off System or some other system, it can always interfere by its own methods. Hence, this contention is also rejected.
The sheet anchor of the arguments of the Counsel for the petitioner is the judgment in The Food Corporation of India Staff Union v. Food Corporation of India & Others 1995 (2) SLR 77. I have gone through the judgment. It is true that certain remarks were made by the learned Judges of the Supreme Court on the Check Off System, but ultimately, they did not go into the functioning of the Check Off System and declare it as an illegal one. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court disposed off the appeal or the basis of consensus arrived at between the parties who agreed that the majority trade union will be decided by Secret Ballot System. Hence, this judgment cannot be pressed into service.
Lastly, the petitioner Union Counsel contended that the 6th and 7th respondents in this writ petition filed writ petitions on the file of this Court, seeking a direction to the respondent No.1 to conduct the elections to the trade union by Secret Ballot System.
Even according to him, these writ petitions were filed in the year 1996 and the Check Off System was introduced on 23-4-1998. In the light of the changed policy, moreso, with the consent of the employees concerned, it is not known whether the will press for the relief sought for in the writ petitions or they are going to treat the same infructuous moreso, when they have not questioned the Check Off System that was introduced, even in 1st respondent Port Trust.
For all the above reasons, 1 do not find any merits in this writ petitions and the same is accordingly, dismissed. But, in the circumstances there will be no order as to costs.