Kerala High Court
National Union Of Bsnl Workers (Fnto) vs Union Of India on 11 June, 2012
Author: K.Surendra Mohan
Bench: K.Surendra Mohan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN
MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/21ST JYAISHTA 1934
WP(C).No. 35399 of 2010 (Y)
---------------------------
PETITIONER:
-------------
NATIONAL UNION OF BSNL WORKERS (FNTO)
FNTO BHAVAN, LIG 575, PANAMPILLY NAGAR
COCHIN-, 682036
REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT GENERAL, SECRETARY
SRI.K.K.GOPAKUMAR, 'PREMALAKSHMI', B.T.S.ROAD
EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-682024.
BY ADV SMT. SUMATHI DANDAPANI (SR.)
SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
RESPONDENTS:
--------------
1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, ELECTRONICS NIKETAN
LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 003.
2. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD.
(A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ENTERPRISE) REPRESENTED BY
ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, BSNL CORPORATE
OFFICE, 8TH FLOOR, BHARATH SANCHAR BHAWAN
HARISH CHANDER MATHUR LANE, JANPATH
NEW DELHI-110 001.
3. THE CHIEF LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL)
MINISTRY OF LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT, SHRAM SHAKTI
BHAVAN, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI-110 001.
4. ALL INDIA BACKWARD CLASSES TELECOM
EMPLOYEES SANGTHAN, QUARTERS NO.96, EMPRESS
MILLS COLONY, BEZONBAGH, NAGPUR-440 004.
5. BAHUJAN TRADE UNION OF BSNL,
1-69-D, DILSHAD GARDEN, DELHI-110 095.
6. BHARATIYA TELECOM EMPLOYEES UNION(BSNL)
24-147-16/1, EAST ANAND BAGH, MALKAJIRI
HYDERABAD-500 047.
7. BSNL ASSOCIATION OF TELECOM MECHANICS,
H.NO.13-6-102/A, KULSUMPURA KARWAN
HYDERABAD-500 067.
8. BSNL EMPLOYEES CONGRESS, NEAR
SRI KALAIMAGAL SCHOOL, ALAGAPURAM, SALEM-636016.
9. BSNL EMPLOYEES SANGH, NO.8-2-14/26,
SIKHARA ENCLAVE, VAISALI NAGAR, HYDRABAD-79.
10. BSNL EMPLOYEES UNION, DADA GOSH BHAVAN,
2151/1, NEW PATEL NAGAR ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 008.
11. BSNL MAZDOOR SANGH, T15, ATUL GROVE
ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 001.
12. BSNL NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATION STAFF
UNION, OLD TELEPHONE EXCHANGE BUILDING
CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI-110 001.
13. BSNL PATTALI EMPLOYEES WELFARE
ASSOCIATION, 32/46, 4TH MAIN ROAD
CIT NAGAR, NANDANAM, CHENNAI-35.
14. BSNL WORKERS RASHTRIYA UNION,
D-1, ATUL GROVE ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 001.
15. NATIONAL FEDERATION OF TELECOM
EMPLOYEES BSNL REPRESENTED BY ITS NATIONAL DEPUTY
GENERAL SECRETARY C.K.MATHIVANAN, NO.S.4
SAYANI COMPLEX, 354, K.H.ROAD
AYANAVARAM, CHENNAI-600 023.
16. TELECOMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES PROGRESSIVE
UNION, SRI SIVAM APARTMENT, OLD NO.5/4
NEW NO.36/4, VELLALA STREET, KODAMBAKKAM
CHENNAI-24.
R2 BY ADV. SRI.SAJI VARGHESE
R3 BY ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI
BY ADV. SRI.M.K.DAMODARAN (SR.)
BY ADV. SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNAN (ADOOR)
BY ADV. SRI.ALAN PAPALI
BY ADV. SRI.NISHIL.P.S.
BY ADV. SMT.O.V.BINDU
BY ADV. SRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ
BY SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP,SC, BSNL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
APPENDIX
PETITIONER's EXTS:
EXT.P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DT.18-12-2008 SHOWING RECORD OF
DISCUSSIONS AND DECISIONS TAKEN IN THE MEETING HELD ON 12-11-2008
EXT.P2: -DO- OF THE PROCEEDINGS DT. 20.9.2010 SHOWING RECORD OF
DISCUSSIONS AND DECISIONS TAKEN IN THE MEETING HELDON 16-9-2010
EXT.P3: -DO- OF THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE APPLICANT UNION FOR THE
CHANGE IN COD
EXT.P4: -DO- OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD
RESPONDENT ST.23.9.2010
EXT.P5: -DO- OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE
2ND RESPONDENT DT. 30-8-2010
EXT.P6: -DO- OF THE LETTER DT.25.5.2010 ISSUED BY FNTO TO HMOSC
(SHRI.KAMAT)
EXT.P7: -DO- OF THE STRIKE NOTICE DT.22.8.2010 ISSUED BY FNTO
DEMANDING MINIMUM TRADE UNION FACILITIES
EXT.P8: PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER DT.28.12.2011 OF THE 10TH RESPONDENT TO
SHRI.A.N.RAI, DIRECTOR (HR),BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., NEW DELHI, VIDE
NO: BSNLEU/200(REGN)
EXT.P9: -DO- DT.5.1.2012 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO ALL CHIEF
GENERAL MANAGERS, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., VIDE NO:BSNL/39-2/SR/2011
EXT.P10: -DO- DT. 5.3.2012 OF HONOURABLE MINISTER OF STATE FOR
COMMUNICATIONS & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW
DELHI, TO SHRI.ANTO ANTONY, MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT, REFERRED TO IN THE
AFFIDAVIT.
RESPONDENTS' EXTS:
EXT.R10A: TRUE COPY OF THE CODE OF DISCIPLINE FOR RECOGNITION OF
UNIONS ADOPTED BY THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3.
EXT.R15: -DO- OF LETTER DT.17.9.2010 SENT BY NFTE TO THE CMD (CHAIRMAN
AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,BSNL, NEW DELHI-1.
JJ /TRUE COPY/
P.S. TO JUDGE
K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J.
------------------------------------------------------------
W.P(C) NO: 35399 OF 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th June, 2012.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, a registered trade union has filed this writ petition seeking a change in the code of discipline (COD for short) for conducting a referendum among the employees of the second respondent for the purpose of giving recognition to trade unions. According to the petitioner, the management has at present recognized only two unions.
2. Adv.Saji Varghese who appears for the second respondent submits that, the COD can be changed only if there is a consensus among all the employees of the second respondent. The second respondent has no objection to such a change being effected in the event of there being a consensus. It is the third respondent who has to convene a meeting of all the trade unions for the purpose of ascertaining whether there is a consensus among the unions. The second respondent has also stated as follows in the statement filed in this case:-
"In the meeting on 28.9.2001 the Chief Labour Commissioner who was present clarified that if there is WPC 35399/2010 2 consensus among the participating Unions for recognition of more than one Union with minimum of 15% votes, the Ministry of Labour could consider the suggestion with the consent of the Management."
In view of the above statement, it is the Ministry of Labour, the first respondent that has to consider the suggestion with the consent of the management after ascertaining whether there is a consensus among the unions. For the purpose a meeting would have to be convened by the third respondent.
3. The senior counsel who appears for the petitioner points out that the 15th respondent has already filed a counter affidavit putting on record that they have no objection to the COD being changed. The 10th respondent also does not have any objection. However, the counsel for the second respondent submits that the views of the other unions would also have to be ascertained.
4. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-
i) The third respondent is directed to convene a meeting of the trade unions of the employees as well as the management of the second respondent and to ascertain whether there is a consensus among the unions for effecting changes in the COD for conducting a referendum for the purpose of recognising the trade WPC 35399/2010 3 unions in the establishment. The meeting shall be convened as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
ii) The third respondent is further directed to forward the proceedings of such meeting if there is a consensus, for the purpose of being considered by the Ministry of Labour to effect necessary changes in the COD, with the consent of the management.
Sd/-
K. SURENDRA MOHAN
Judge
jj /True copy/
P.S.to Judge
WPC 35399/2010 4