Madras High Court
Madras Fertilizers Ambedkar ... vs The Chairman And Managing Director, ... on 11 March, 1998
Equivalent citations: (1998)2MLJ650
ORDER
S.S. Subramani, J,
1. Petitioner seeks issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records relating to the proceedings No.3/98 P & A Bulletin, dated 12.1.1998, and quash the same as ultra vires, arbitrary, unreasonable, against the constitutional rights and guarantees and the rules and regulations and norms laid down in regulating the Trade Unions in maintaining the peaceful Industrial atmosphere and thereby direct the respondent/Management to recognise the petitioner-Union in accordance with rules and procedure with all permissible privileges, immunities and rights of Trade Union.
2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition it is stated that the petitioner is the General Secretary of the petitioner-Union, which is a registered trade union under the provisions of Trade Unions Act, 1926. It is said that Madras Fertilizers Limited (in short 'MFL') is functioning at Manali for about 30 years, and its commercial production started in 1971. There was only one Union viz., the Madras Fertilizers Staff union (R-3 herein) without any political affiliation. From 1982, another union by name Madras Fertilizer National Employees Union affiliated to the INTUC started functioning. Both the unions are duly recognised by the Management. It is said that the petitioner-Union is started on 26.8.1997, consisting of 240 members, with an aim and object to effectively and efficiently establish and promote by every means to secure and protect the constitutional rights of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe employees with a view to furthering mutual understanding and goodwill and to protect the interest of SC/ST employees. It is said that the necessity to organise such a Union arose, as both the recognised unions started behaving differently towards a section of workers based upon caste and communal considerations. When the Management wanted to implement the rules of reservation, the other Unions raised the manner of opposition in an uncertain terms as they wrongly felt that by implementation of the reservation policy, the interest of their members would be affected. It is also the case of the petitioner that they wrote to the respondent/ Management requesting them to accord recognition to petitioner-Union as has been the case of the other two unions and for equal treatment guaranteed under Articles 14 and 19(l)(c) of the Constitution. The further contention is that the Management started moving towards a wrong direction as if groping in dark by taking recourse to the weapon of election for the first time in the thirty years' history of the company. The petitioner-Union again wrote to the Management on 22.10.1997, explaining them that they have to form Union as a last resort, and also assured the Management of their co-operation in allowing the wheels of production to run smoothly without hampering production at any cost. They also wrote to the Minister for Chemicals and Fertilizers. By a letter dated 3.12.1997, they requested the Management to have a formal meeting for introducing the office bearers to the Management, but there was no reply. Immediately after the receipt of the letter dated 3.12.1997, the Management started moving swiftly and issued a letter to INTUC Union on 15.12.1997, suggesting to test the majority strength of the Union for the purpose of conducting negotiation bilaterally. They also proposed to conduct election through secret ballot to ascertain the membership of the Union. This attempt of the Management is not correct according to the petitioner. It is said that the letter of the Management dated 15.12.1997 and the bulletin dated 12.1.1998 are not legal and the same are issued without jurisdiction. From the letter, it is clear that the intention of the Management was that they wanted only one union and the test is 51% of the total work force. It is also said that even though the bulletin is dated 12.1.1998, the same is displayed on the notice board on the evening of 13.1.1998, fixing the time for filing of nomination as 3.00 P.M., on 15.1.1998, knowing fully well that 14.1.1998 was a holiday for Pongal. It is also said that in every election, the Returning Officer will be an officer of the Labour Department, whereas in this case, a Deputy General Manager has been appointed as the Returning Officer. It is said that in the first letter it is 15% of the total workmen in the organization whereas in the second letter it is 15% of the total valid votes polled, which is contradictory, and therefore, it is invalid. It is said that the whole exercise of the Management is an attempt in futility with an ulterior motive and evil design not to recognise the petitioner-Union and at the same time recognise the Union, which goes according to their wishes. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has come to this Court for the reliefs stated above.
3. Counter-affidavit, has been filed on behalf of the Management, wherein they denied the allegations made in the writ petition. According to them there were already two unions representing the entire workmen, including the members of SC/ST. The petitioner-Union was only formed very recently i.e., a few months before the filing of the writ petition, and the same is not recognised by the Management. It is said that the company has two recognised unions and were forced to spend considerable time and energy in consulting with both the Unions for every issue before arriving at a decision and both the Unions had difference of opinion on many issues in view of the friction that had developed between them, the respondent company could not arrive at an early decision which resulted in difference of opinion between the Management and both the Unions. Both the Unions also claimed supremacy over the other and had been demanding status of sole bargaining body. Left with no other remedy, the respondent-company decided to conduct the election to test the relative strength of the Unions to select a representative body and this Act of the Management cannot be said to be for ulterior motive. They had been following strictly the guidelines and directives of the Government of India in the implementation of rules of reservation for SC/ST in a smooth and fair manner. The allegation that the Management refused to meet the petitioner-Office bearers is also denied. After having discussion with the respective registered trade Unions, it was decided to hold an election through secret ballot. The idea started even in October, 1997. Even in the letter dated 15.12.1997, the company had intimated that it proposed to conduct an election to test the majority of the Union, for the purpose of negotiation and discussion on any bilateral issue. In pursuance of the above letter election was held on two dated viz., on 28.1.1998 for its employees in Regional Offices and on 3.2.1998, for its employees in their Head Office at Manali, Chennai. The allegation that the bulletin dated 12.1.1998 was displayed only on 13.1.1998, is without any basis. The bulletin was displayed on 12.1.1998 itself and the copies were distributed to all the notice boards within the respondent company, and there was no prohibition or obstruction for the petitioner-Union also to file their nomination. Enough time was given for filing the nomination to contest the election. The other two Unions filed their nominations well within time and the petitioner-Union had not filed any nomination. But they prayed this Court to stall the election. There is also no rule, which says that the Returning Officer of the Election shall be from the Labour Department. Since there is no rule, nor there is prohibition for appointing any other person, the Deputy General Manager, who is currently in charge of the Administration and Public Relations was nominated as the Returning Officer. The petitioner who has failed to participate in the election has no locus standi to question the method of selecting the representative body. It prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.
4. Impleading petition has also been filed by the Madras Fertilizers Staff Union, to get themselves impleaded. They have also filed an application to vacate the interim order of this Court. The contentions in the said application are more or less similar to the contentions in the counter-affidavit filed by the Management. To the impleading application, the writ petitioner has filed a detailed counter affidavit, and it had also filed a typed-set of papers.
5. After having heard the counsel on both sides, I feel that the writ petition has no merit. In the decision reported in Food Corporation of India Staff Union v. Food Corporation of India and Ors. (1995)1 S.C.C. (Supp.) 678, their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the relative strength of the Union has to be considered by secret ballot, and it is better to have one Union. In paragraph 1 of the judgment, it has been held thus:
1. Collective bargaining is the principal raisin d'etre of the trade unions. However, to see that the trade union, which takes up the matter concerning service conditions of the workmen truly represents the workmen employed in the establishment, the trade union is first required to get itself registered under the provisions of Trade Unions Act, 1926. This gives a stamp of due formation of the trade union and assures the mind of the employer that the trade union is an authenticated body; the names and occupation of whose office-bearers also become known. But when in an establishment, be it an industry or an undertaking there are more than one registered trade unions, the question as to with whom the employer should negotiate or enter into bargaining assumes importance, because if the trade union claiming this right be one which has as its members minority of the workmen/employees, the settlement, even if any arrived between the employers and such a union, may not be acceptable to the majority and may not result in industrial peace. In such a situation with whom the employer should bargain, or to put it differently who should be the sole bargaining agent, has been a matter of discussion and some dispute. The "check off system" which once prevailed in this domain has lost its appeal; and so, efforts are on to find out which other system can foot the bail. The method of secret ballot is being gradually accepted. All concerned would, however; like to see that this method is so, adapted and adjusted that it reflects the correct position as regards membership of the different trade unions operating in one and the same industry, establishment or undertaking.
After notice to the various Trade Unions, their Lordships in that case directed the procedure to be followed for assessing the representative character of trade unions by "secret ballot system."
6. It cannot be said that the respondent/Management in this case acted illegally in adopting the same procedure as prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. When the respondent/Management says that there is unnecessary waste time in negotiating with two or three Unions and in spite of the time being spent, no decision could be taken in view of the difference of opinion in between the various unions and under the above circumstances, they thought it fit and that too with the consent of the recognised unions to hold a secret ballot to know the strength of the respective unions with whom it should bargain. Even though the petitioner-Union got registered in August, 1997, and the idea of election by secret ballot was mooted only in December, 1997, no attempt was made on the part of the petitioner to participate in the election. It is seen from the correspondence, that the Management has already mooted the idea of election by secret ballot. After having missed the opportunity given to it, coming to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, can never be appreciated. If the petitioner claims that it has got a good strength, it is only proper on its part to participate in the election and establish the same. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, referred to above, the respondent/Management has acted only in accordance with law, and the present writ petition has no bona fide.
7. Pursuant to the interim orders of this Court, the election was conducted, but the result is not published. Now that I hold that the writ petition is without any merit, I direct the respondent/Management to publish the result of the election forthwith. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected W.M.Ps., are closed.