Madhya Pradesh High Court
Moil Kamgar Sanghathan vs Union Of India on 19 March, 2019
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR
W.P. No.3311/2019
(MOIL Kamgar Sanghathan Vs/- Union of India & Others)
Jabalpur, Dated 19.03.2019
Mr. K.C. Ghildiyal, learned counsel for the Petitioner.
Mr. Naman Nagrath, learned senior counsel with Mr. Jubin Prasad,
counsel for the Caveat.
Mr. Vikram Singh, learned counsel for Respondents No.2 and 3.
Mr. Anoop Nair, learned counsel for Respondent No.4. With consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.
The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner herein challenging the letters dated 30/01/19 (Annexure P/12 and P/13) and letter dated 31/01/19 (Annexure P/14). This is the second round of litigation between the parties. Initially, the Respondent No.5 had filed a writ petition before this Court inter-alia praying therein that the elections be held through secret ballot for the members of Manganese Ore India Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the MOIL' for the sake of brevity), which is an undertaking of the Government of India. The Petitioner undisputedly is a recognised union having the largest membership of workers of MOIL. The Respondent No.5 filed a writ petitions before this Court being W.P. No.9002/2010 and W.P. No.860/2012. Vide order dated 19.6.2012, both the writ petitions were dismissed. The issues raised in those petitions were for the conduct of election to the Union through secret ballot and the second issue was that the Petitioner herein did not hold elections for more than two years and, therefore, cannot be treated as a recognised Union. While dismissing the writ petitions, this Court held that in the light of the Code of Discipline, which does not provide for secret ballot, the 2 elections cannot be held through secret ballot. As regards the second contention that the instant Petitioner cannot be deemed to be a recognised Union as no verification for membership have been conducted to it even after the passage of two years. The said contention was rejected by this Court as relying upon Clause 12 of the Code of Discipline, which is under the heading of period of recognition and reads as under: -
"When a Union has been recognised there is to be no change for a period of two years from the date of recognition provided it is not found responsible for a breach of the Code during this period".
2. The aforesaid provision does not lay down an outer limit of time after which, re-verification of its members is mandatory. The provision only provides that the recognition shall not be cancelled during the period of two years from the date of recognition. It only provides for the cancellation of verification if it is found that the said Union was responsible for the breach of Code of Discipline during the period of two years.
3. Against the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the Respondent No.5 herein approached this Court in a Writ Appeal, which upheld the two aforementioned findings of the learned Single Judge. The learned Division Bench took cognizance of the fact that as the process of verification and recognition has not taken place since the last two years. It was also of the opinion that such a situation definitely cannot be said to be in the interest of Industrial or Labour relation. The learned Division Bench also recorded the submission at bar made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Management herein, who was 3 Respondent in the Writ Appeal, that it is not negotiating with any of the Representative Union. Thereafter, the Division Bench disposed of the Writ Appeal directing the Chief Labour Commissioner, Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi and the Regional Labour Commissioner, Central (RLC for short) at Nagpur, to immediately take steps for supervising the process of registration and verification of membership. It also directed the Management that they shall continue the practise of not negotiating with any of the Representative Unions till the exercise of verification and registration of the membership of the union is completed by the Respondents No.2 and 3.
4. From the order of the learned Division Bench, it is very clear that specific directions were issued to the Chief Labour Commissioner and the Regional Labour Commissioner, who were arrayed as Respondents No.2 and 3 in the Writ Appeal, to initiate the process of registration and verification of membership. The only direction explicit, unambiguously and unequivocally given to the Management by the Ld. Division Bench was that they shall not negotiate with any of the representative Unions till the exercise of recognition of the Union and the registration and verification of their membership is completed.
5. The Petitioners were not aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Division Bench. However, thereafter, the Regional Labour Commissioner at Nagpur vide letter dated 30.1.2019 inter-alia observed that he was in receipt of the complaint that check-off and office premises provided to the Petitioner, which were continuing, be stopped till the process of verification and registration is completed as per the directions of this Court in Writ Appeal and it directed that all the 4 facilities provided to the Petitioner or to any other Union, directly or indirectly be withdrawn forthwith till the completion of the process. In compliance of the said letter issued by the RLC, the Respondent No.4 forthwith complied by withdrawing the check-off facility extended to the Petitioner and other Union and also withdrew the office facilities that were extended to the Petitioner at the Head Office as well as the Mines. After compliance by the Respondent No.4, the Respondent No.3 i.e. the RLC issued another letter dt.31/01/19. This letter refers to the orders passed by this Court in the Writ Appeal and holds the Respondent No.4 responsible for extending all the facilities to the Petitioner-Union except the status of negotiation. In the last paragraph of this letter, the RLC once again warns the Respondent No.4 not to misinterpret the order of the High Court and cooperate with the RLC to complete the task of registration and verification within a time limit laid down by this Court in the Writ Appeal.
6. This petition has been filed by the Petitioner-Union who is directly aggrieved by the order dated 30.1.2019 of the RLC by which the Respondent No.4 withdrew the check-off facility of the Petitioner and also withdrew the office facilities granted to it. At the risk of repetition, it is stated here that the said order withdrawing the check-off and infra- structural facilities of the Petitioner-Union by the Respondent No.4 was passed only on account of the directions given by the RLC vide letter dated 30.1.2019. It is also relevant to mention here that the letter dated 30.1.2019 issued by the Respondent No.4 does not even fleetingly refer to the order passed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal, as the reason for withdrawing the check-off facility and infra-structural facilities extended to the Petitioner. During the time this petition was pending, 5 the Respondent No.3 filed an Interlocutory Application being I.A. No.2604/2019 for taking additional documents on record on 28/02/19. For the reasons stated in the said I.A. the same is allowed and the document is taken on record and considered.
7. The document is a letter dated 27/02/19 issued by the Respondent No.3 by which the Respondent No.3 has withdrawn the letter dated 30/01/19 and 31/01/19 by stating therein that the Management is free to act on its own as per the provision of the law. The effect of the said letter being withdrawn according to the learned counsel for the Petitioner, is that the letter issued by the MOIL dated 30.1.2019 by which the check-off facility and the infra-structural facility were withdrawn from the Petitioner, lost its relevance. The learned counsel for Respondent No.5 has argued that the Respondent No.4 is hand-in-gloves with the Petitioner and that if the Petitioner is no longer aggrieved as the orders of the RLC dated 30/01/19 and 31/01/19 are withdrawn, then the Petitioner-Union should withdraw this petition itself as it is implied that the cause of action no longer exists. Secondly, he has also submitted that the Management was free to withdraw the impugned letter dated 30/01/19 by which the aforementioned facilities were withdrawn from the Petitioner, if it did not feel bound by the order passed by the learned Division Bench in Writ Appeal. He has further submitted that rather than doing so, the Respondent No.4 is attempting to get the order itself quashed by this Court. Lastly, he has argued that the Division Bench in the Writ Appeal has found that the Management is hand-in-gloves and is in connivance with the Petitioner-Union.
6
8. Heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the documents filed along with this petition. The scope of this petition is extremely limited. The Petitioner-Union is only aggrieved by the withdrawal by the Respondent No.4, vide letter dated 30/01/19, of the check-off and infra- structural facilities enjoyed by it. All that needs to be seen is the status of the said letter in the light of withdrawal by the Respondent No.3 of its orders dated 30/01/19 and 31/01/19 by which the Respondent No.3 had directed the Respondent No.4 to withdraw the check-off facility given to the Petitioner and other Unions along with the withdrawal of the infra-structural facilities granted to it. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that if the cause of action no longer subsists or survives on account of withdrawal of the two aforementioned orders passed by the Respondent No.3 then, the Petitioner should withdraw the instant writ petition, the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that even though the orders dated 30/01/19 and 31/01/19 were the directions to the Respondent No.4 by the Respondent No.3 to withdraw the check-off facility and infra-structural facilities to the Petitioner, the main order giving effect to the direction to the Respondent No.3 is the letter dated 31/01/19 addressed by the Respondent No.4 to the Respondent No.3. He further states that the letter is still in effect today, as it has not been withdrawn by the Management and, therefore, the cause of action to sustain this petition still survives. This court agrees with the submission put forth by the Ld. Counsel of the Petitioner and holds that the petition is sustainable.
9. The second submission of the learned counsel for the Respondent No.5 is that the Management is within its powers, if it feels that the order passed by the Division Bench in the Writ Appeal does not direct it to 7 stop the check-off facility and the infra-structural facilities to the Petitioner-Union than in such eventuality, the Management can withdraw the impugned letter dated 30/01/19 and give a quietus to the entire issue. The learned counsel for Respondent No.4 has submitted that the dilemma created by the situation places his client between the rock and hard place where, if the Respondent No.4 withdraws the action taken on the Petitioner vide letter dated 30/01/19, it would stand of being accused of favouritism by the Respondent No.5, and if it does not withdraws the said letter, it would stand accused of favouritism by the Petitioner in favour of the Respondent No.5. The said dilemma put forth by the learned counsel for Respondent No.4 is probable and reasonably explains the inaction of the part of the Respondent No.4.
10. The next contention is more in the nature of an allegation put forth by the learned counsel for Respondent No.5 that the Management is acting in connivance with the Petitioner in order to assist the Petitioner and that there is a finding to that effect in the order passed by the learned Division Bench of this court. The said submission is not supported by any material on record. There is no finding anywhere in the judgment of the learned Division Bench of this Court in the Writ Appeal that the Respondent No.4 is in active connivance with the Petitioner and is acting in order to assist the Petitioner. The learned Division Bench of this Court has only expressed its concern that the registration and verification of the membership has not taken place for the past about 10 years. Under the circumstances, the order passed by the learned Division Bench in Writ Appeal gave a specific direction only to the Chief Labour Commissioner and the RLC to conduct the process of registration and verification of the membership and recognition of the 8 Union which had to be completed within three months, strictly in accordance with the Code of Discipline prevailing in the establishment. The said order has not given any direction either implied or expressed to the Respondent No.4 to withdraw the check-off facility and the infra- structural facilities given to the Petitioner-Union.
11. As on date, as the impugned orders dated 30/01/19 and 31/01/19 issued by the Respondent No.3 have been withdrawn, no orders have to be passed with regard to the same. The order dated 30/01/19, as already mentioned herein above, makes it abundantly clear that the said order has been passed by the Respondent No.4 only in compliance of the letter dated 30/01/19 passed by the Respondent No.3. The said letter does not disclose that the Respondent No.4 had withdrawn the check- off facility and the infra-structural facilities extended to the Petitioner- Union on account of any direction having been given by this Court in the order of the learned Division Bench passed in the Writ Appeal. Under the circumstances, when the letter dated 30/01/19 passed by the Respondent No.3 itself has been withdrawn, the impugned letter dated 30/01/19 passed by the Respondent No.4 loses its raison de etré.
12. Under the circumstances, this petition succeeds and the impugned letter dated 30.1.2019 issued by the Respondent No.4, which is annexed with the petition as Annexure P/13 at page 168, is hereby quashed and the check-off facility as also the infra-structural facilities that was available to the Petitioner-Union, is restored from the date of its discontinuation i.e. 30.1.2019 and the Petitioner-Union would be extended the aforesaid benefits, as before. For the aforementioned reasons, the instant petition stands allowed with no order as to costs.
9C.C. as per rules.
(Atul Sreedharan) Judge ASHISH DATTA 2019.04.09 11:21:39 +05'30'