Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The grievance of the petitioner-Union is that even though the petitioner-Union is having larger membership and even though the three respondent-Unions are actually in minority, they are still enjoying the status of recognised Unions at the hands of O.N.G.C. The say of the petitioner-Union is that the process of verification of the membership of the Union had not taken place since long and lastly, the said verification was carried out as back as in the year 1978. If proper verification is carried out, the petitioner-Union can prove the strength of its members. It is also averred in the petition that the O.N.G.C. is deliberately sheltering the minority Unions in taking policy decision concerning the service conditions of the workmen and the consultation is made only with the office bearers of the aforesaid Unions, even though the petitioner-Union is having more membership as compared to the aforesaid minority Unions. It is also the say of the petitioner that if any proper verification is carried out, the fact about the membership will become clear. It is also the say of the petitioner-Union that the petitioner is having sufficient membership to get recognition as per the policy of the O.N.G.C. In Paragraph 12 of the petition, it is averred that the O.N.G.C. did not want the presence of the petitioner-Union in deciding the policy matters, and therefore, in spite of the fact that the petitioner-Union is fulfilling the conditions laid down in the policy for recognition, the same was not granted to the petitioner-Union. The above-said action on the part of the O.N.G.C. in not verifying the membership since last 23 years is arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. On these and such other averments, therefore, the present Special Civil Application is filed by the petitioner-Union, challenging the action of the O.N.G.C. in not carrying out the verification to find out the membership of the concerned Unions. Along with the petition, the petitioner has also annexed Code of Discipline containing procedure for verification of membership of Unions for recognition by the O.N.G.C..

6. On behalf of respondent No. 3-Union also, reply has been filed, as stated earlier, and the petition is resisted on various grounds. It is stated in the said reply that the O.N.G.C. has its own policy for recognition of the Trade Unions under the Code of Discipline and that as per that policy recognition on Regional basis has been given very wide and prime importance. It is stated that respondent No. 5, O.N.G.C. Employees' Union, has got the majority in Mehsana Project, and thereafter, verification of the membership has taken place. Thereafter, Court proceedings against the same were initiated, and ultimately, there was a stay against recognition of the O.N.G.C. Employees' Union in the Mehsana Project. It is stated that, in view of the stay order granted by the Court, no further recognition can be granted so far as Mehsana Project is concerned. It is stated that the petitioner has suppressed this fact from this Court.

7. On behalf of respondent No. 5, petition is resisted by filing affidavit-in-reply. In the said reply, it has been pointed out that the recognition of the Unions under the Code of Discipline is completely voluntary in nature, that the provisions for recognition of the Unions under the Code of Discipline clearly stated that "the Code of Discipline lays down certain criteria for recognition of Unions by the Management on a voluntary basis". The recognition of any Union under the Code of Discipline is a completely voluntary process and the same is not enforceable by way of a writ petition. Recognition of Unions is based on the Code of Discipline accepted by the Management and for this purpose, any Union desirous of getting recognition, has to fulfil the criteria laid down by the said Code. Other averments in the petition are also denied by detailed averments in the affidavit-in-reply by the said Union. It is stated in the said reply that the petitioner has no legal or statutory right to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is also stated that membership fees of the members of the respondent No. 3-Association and the respondent No. 5-Union are deducted from their wages based on the individual authorization of the workers and this fact itself proves that the respondent-Association/Union command majority in the respective Projects. It is stated in the reply that Mr. R.H. Pathan, who has filed the present petition on behalf of the petitioner-Union, was, for a long period of time, a member of the respondent No. 3, O.N.G.C. Employees' Association and he was Secretary of the said Association, but after having been defeated in the election of the Union, ultimately, this petition has been filed by him through the petitioner-Union, and therefore, at the instance of such person, the Court should not entertain the petition. On these and such other grounds, the present petition has been resisted by the said Union.

19. At this juncture, reference is required to be made to the letter of the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Labour, dated 10-8-2000, which is in connection with recognition of Unions under the Code of Discipline. It is stated in the said letter that it has come to the notice of the Ministry that certain recognised Unions, who have got the recognition status under the Code of Discipline, have not been giving their consent to start fresh verification process to verify their membership strength for the purpose of recognition by any of the three methods, viz., check-off, sampling and secret ballot. The matter has been examined in the Ministry and it is clarified that in cases where recognised Unions have already enjoyed such a status for a period of two years under the Code of Discipline, it is not necessary to consult all the Trade Unions and recognised Union of the membership for the purpose of recognition. All such cases may be reviewed and fresh verification may be undertaken. Specific period of recognition for any Trade Union is only two years. In other words, wherever the period of two years has expired, recognition of Trade Union will not be valid beyond this period. It is required to be noted that O.N.G.C., being a Government Undertaking, is bound to follow the Instructions and Circulars of the Government. Apart from that, even on the principles of fair-play, a particular Union, which is enjoying the status of recognition, cannot continue to enjoy the said status without proving its membership at regular intervals because by virtue of such recognition, certain privileges are conferred to such Unions. As stated above, since 1978, no verification is carried out by the O.N.G.C. in Gujarat, and therefore, it is high time the verification should be carried out at the earliest. As stated above, it is for the O.N.G.C. to evolve its policy as to in which manner they should consider the question of giving recognition and as to how membership is to be proved, and ultimately, if it is found by the O.N.G.C. that secret ballot system for the purpose of verification of membership of the Unions is more rational and scientific, there is nothing wrong if such practice is followed by the O.N.G.C. even in the State of Gujarat. When O.N.G.C., itself has given recognition to a particular Trade Union on the basis of verification of membership of the Unions through secret ballot system in Mumbai and some other parts of the country, there is no reason why similar process should not be followed in the State of Gujarat also. O.N.G.C., being an All India Undertaking, is supposed to act in a uniform manner. In the aforesaid view, I am of the opinion that O.N.G.C., should undertake fresh verification of the membership of the Unions for the purpose of giving recognition to the Union and without waiting for any specific consent by any other Trade Union in this behalf.