Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Ongc All Employees Union, vs Oil And Natural Gas Corporation ... on 15 November, 2019
Author: T. Rajani
Bench: T. Rajani
* SMT JUSTICE T. RAJANI
+ WRIT PETITION No.14029 of 2019
% 15.11.2019
# ONGC All Employees Union, Regd. No.G-3050, Affiliated to Centre
of India Trade Unions (CITU), K.G.Basin, Rajahmundry Asset,
Rajahmundry Eastern Offshore Asset, Kakinada, East Godavari
District, rep. by its General Secretary Sri B.Simhachalam.
... Petitioner
Vs.
$ Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited, Rajahmundry and others.
.... Respondents
! Counsel for the petitioners: SRI PRAKASH BUDDARAPU
Counsel for the Respondents: KAKARA VENKATA RAO
For respondents 1 to 3
<Gist :
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. (1994) 4 SCC 711
2. (2016) 2 ALD 495
3. 2017 (4) SUPREME 424
2
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
+ WRIT PETITION No.14029 of 2019
Between:
# ONGC All Employees Union, Regd. No.G-3050, Affiliated to Centre
of India Trade Unions (CITU), K.G.Basin, Rajahmundry Asset,
Rajahmundry Eastern Offshore Asset, Kakinada, East Godavari
District, rep. by its General Secretary Sri B.Simhachalam.
... Petitioner
Vs.
$ Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited, Rajahmundry and others.
.... Respondents
Date of order Pronounced: 15.11.2019
Submitted for Approval:
SMT JUSTICE T. RAJANI
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No
may be allowed to see the judgments ?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No
marked to Law Reporters/Journals
3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to Yes/No
see the fair copy of the Judgment ?
_____________
T. RAJANI, J
3
SMT. JUSTICE T.RAJANI
WRIT PETITION No. 14029 OF 2019
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the meeting of committee members on Wage Revision-2017, as communicated by respondent No. 2 through File No. 14 (1)/2017-IR, dated 11-09-2019, proposing to conduct meeting on 20th and 21st September, 2019, at Guwahati in the absence of the recognized Union till elections conducted so far as Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (for short, 'ONGC') at Rajahmundry Asset is concerned, as illegal and arbitrary.
2. The petitioner is an Employees Union in the 1st respondent Corporation, represented by its General Secretary. The petitioner's Union came into existence with effect from 07-12-2015 having been registered under the provisions of the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926. As per the Rules and bylaws of the Association, all the employees, who are working within the limits of Rajahmundry Asset in ONGC KG Basin and all the employees of Eastern Offshore Asset (Kakinada) i.e. Regular (Staff) (Helpers, Foreman, Chargemen, Attenders, Assistant Technicians etc. sections) and Casual Workers are eligible to get membership in the Petitioner Union. It was initially registered under the Indian Trades Union Act, 1926. It has as many as 69 term based employees in the year 2015, which rose to 74 in the year 4 2016. The membership was valid up to December, 2017. The total number of employees came to 152 in the year 2017 and to 195 in the year 2018. During that year, there was a change in the composition of the Union. The regular employees of the Union were also elected as Office bearers. Change in office bearers has nothing to do with the regular employees or term based employees and they continue to be members from January, 2018, to December, 2018. The verification poll through secret ballot is due in ONGC Rajahmundry Asset as last elections were held in December, 2015. In the said elections, respondent No. 6 i.e. Petroleum Employees' Union, has emerged as a recognized Union. The tenure of the recognized Union was only for a period of two years. The term of the said union commenced with effect from 16.03.2016 and completed by 15.03.2018. Thereafter the verification poll for the recognized union has to be conducted but not conducted till the Notification was issued by the 4th respondent on 16.08.2019 for the purpose of conducing elections. The 6th respondent has submitted a representation to the concerned competent authority seeking extension of its duration for one more year which was rejected by proceedings, dated 19.09.2016, of the Ministry of Labour and Employment. Hence, the recognition has to be deemed to have been completed by 15.03.2018. Thereafter, there is no recognized Union so far as Rajahmundry Asset and EOA Asset are concerned. 5 The 6th respondent approached the Telangana High Court by filing W.P.No.18333 of 2019 against allowing the petitioner to participate in the election process on various grounds and the Telangana High Court granted interim order staying further process of elections and the said writ petition is pending. When the election schedule was issued and the process of further election is commenced, thereby no meeting shall be conducted, more particularly when no recognized Union is in existence. The said meeting cannot be held as election schedule is already notified, and the process of election is stayed. The petitioner moved vacate stay petition, which is pending before the High Court of Telangana. The petitioner submitted detailed representation about the existence of recognized Union. But the official respondents are restraining themselves from proceeding with the meeting. If the meeting is held, the regular employees will be in disadvantageous position as there is no representation from the recognized union. Hence, the conduction of meeting is prayed to be declared as illegal and consequently a prayer to set aside the file No. 14 (1)/17/IR, dated 11.09.2019 issued by the 2nd respondent.
3. The counter of the respondents denies the contents of the writ petition and the submissions are that the impugned meeting is proposed to be held in Guwahati for wage revision. The letter, dated 11.09.2019, which is also impugned in the writ petition emanated 6 from the Dehradun, Uttarakhand State. Therefore, no cause of action has arisen either in part or full in Andhra Pradesh State. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. The petitioner has no locus standi to question the impugned wage revision meeting as the petitioner is not a recognized union. The petitioner, by filing this writ petition, has stalled and disrupted an important issue of revision of wages concerning 10,828 workers in ONGC in all over India about 22 work centers, which are recognized by 12 recognized Unions. The Workers at Rajahmundry constitute only 3.4% of the total workmen in ONGC. Undisputedly, under the scheme of recognition of the Union under the code of discipline, the representative capacity to have a dialogue or negotiation, rests with the recognized union only and the petitioner has no such status. Verification of membership of the Unions is being done under the code of discipline, which does not have any statutory force or basis. Just because this process has involved verification through secret ballot, it cannot be termed or treated as an election process. ONGC has opted to follow the code of conduct for recognition of Unions. According to the Government policy, which is applicable to ONGC, the recognized status of a union shall continue till other union is recognized. Therefore, the premise on which the writ petition is filed, that 6th respondent ceased to be a recognized union after completion of its present tenure of recognition, is absolutely in correct and false. The document referred to as 7 Notification, dated 16.08.2019 is not a notification but the Minutes of the Meeting held by Dy.CLC/TO/Hyderabad for deciding the issues and for fixing schedule for verification. With the above submissions, the respondents seek to dismiss the writ petition.
4. Heard Sri Prakash Buddarapu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kakara Venkata Rao, learned standing counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
5. Firstly the issue raised with regard to jurisdiction needs to be decided. In support of the contention with regard to jurisdiction, learned standing counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 relies on two judgments. The first judgment is rendered by the Apex Court in Oil and Natural Gas Commission Vs. Utpal Kumar Basu1. The facts of the case dealt with by the Apex Court in the above judgment are that ONGC issued an advertisement calling for tenders for setting up of a Kerosene Recovery Processing Unit in Gujarat; NICCO, having its registered office in Calcutta, became aware of the tender notice and participated in the tender process and except participating in the tender process in response to the advertisement pertaining to the Kerosene Recovery Processing Unit, which was proposed to be located in Gujarat, there was no cause of action which arose at Calcutta. Hence, in the above circumstances, the Apex Court held 1 (1994) 4 SCC 711 8 that by mere reading of advertisement by NICCO in Times of India, which is circulated in West Bengal State, cause of action cannot be said to have arisen in Calcutta which is in West Bengal. The Court also held that the sole ground that the petitioner before the Court resides in or carries on business from a registered office in a particular place cannot confer jurisdiction on a Court. The other judgment relied upon is rendered by High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in Consortium of Sai Rama Engineering Enterprises and Megha Engineering and Infrastructures Limited Vs. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited, represented by its Managing Director2. That was a case dealing with bank guarantee which was executed at Delhi for being transmitted for performance to Bombay. In the above circumstances, it was held that it does not amount to a cause of action for maintaining the writ petition.
6. But the facts of the case on hand are that by virtue of minutes dated 11-09-2019, it is decided to hold a meeting of the committee members constituted for finalization of various aspects of wage revision for employees of unionized categories of ONGC. The minutes also noted that all the general secretaries of the recognized unions, who are members of the wage revision committee, are to be 2 (2016) 2 ALD 495 9 permitted to attend the said meeting. The grievance of the petitioner is that elections are scheduled to be held, though are stayed by High Court of Telangana by virtue of an interim order dated 22-08-2019 in W.P.No. 18333 of 2019; and if respondent No. 6 is permitted to participate in the wage revision committee meeting, it would gain an edge in the elections and hence, it shall not be permitted to participate in the said meeting.
7. Learned standing counsel submits that respondent No. 6 is a recognized union which was in power earlier and that since the elections are stayed, it continues to be the recognized union until new body is elected. Learned standing counsel draws the attention of this Court to Clause XVII of the code of discipline and criteria for recognition of unions which runs as under:
"A union recognized on the basis of the result of Secret Ballot will enjoy its recognized status for a period of two years and there shall not be any change in its status for a period of two years from the date of its recognition. It can continue its recognized status even beyond the period of two years till any other union challenges its recognized status. In that event determination of a majority union would be initiated and till any other union is recognized, the recognized union will keep on enjoying its status."
In this case, the recognized status of respondent No. 6 has not changed. Hence, respondent No. 6 continues to enjoy the status of 10 the recognized union. The office of respondent No. 6 is located in Rajahmundry which falls within the jurisdiction of this Court. By virtue of the minutes dated 11-09-2019, all the recognized unions are permitted to participate in the wage revision committee meeting. Hence, it cannot be said that the facts of this case stand in similarity to any of the facts dealt with in the above cited two judgments. Hence, in the above circumstances, it cannot be said that this Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petition.
8. The next question that comes up is whether respondent No. 6 cannot be permitted to participate in the wage revision committee meeting by simply considering that it would have an edge in the ensuing elections if it is permitted to participate. In that regard, learned standing counsel relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shivashakti Sugars Limited Vs. Shree Renuka Sugar Limited and others3, wherein the Supreme Court held that law is an inter-disciplinary subject where interface between law and other sciences come into play and the impact of other disciplines of law is to be necessarily kept in mind while taking a decision. Interface between law and economics is much more relevant in today's time and even if there be some technical violation, the appellant's factory is required to be run in larger economic interest of public. The Apex 3 2017 (4) SUPREME 424 11 Court went on to say that in a situation where two views are possible or wherever there is a discretion given to the Court by law, the Court needs to lean in favour of a particular view which sub-serves the economic interest of the nation and that conversely, the Court needs to avoid that particular outcome which has a potential to create an adverse affect on employment, growth of infrastructure or economy or the revenue of the State. Learned standing counsel, with the help of the above judgment, submits that altogether there are more than ten thousand employees working in ONGC all over the country; employees working in Rajahmundry are only about 300 in number and if the wage revision committee is not permitted to sit and decide the wage revision, the impact of the said order would be devastating as huge number of employees would suffer.
9. Apart from this Court finding merit in the said argument, it can be seen that except the apprehension of the petitioner, that respondent No. 6 would gain a margin in the elections if it is permitted to sit in the wage revision committee meeting, there is no other ground on which respondent No. 6 shall not be permitted to participate in the said meeting. Any stay on the proceedings of the wage revision committee would result in loss to huge number of employees. It is not respondent No. 6 alone that is participating in the wage revision committee meeting. As submitted by learned 12 standing counsel, the union, representing only 300 employees, would not be able to make a major impact on the wage revision and any credit pertaining to the wage revision would not be attributed to any of the unions as it is the outcome of the general discussion, that goes on in the committee meeting, that would decide the wage revision. Finding the above argument to be merited, this Court is inclined to dismiss the writ petition.
10. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand dismissed in consequence.
___________ T.RAJANI, J.
Date: 15-11-2019.
LMV+JSK 13 SMT. JUSTICE T.RAJANI WRIT PETITION No. 14029 OF 2019 DATE: 15TH NOVEMBER, 2019 LMV+JSK