Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records from the 5th respondent relating to his order dated 27.1.2005 and quash the same and consequently direct the competent certifying officer to hold fresh certification proceedings.

3. The short facts of the matter as narrated in the affidavit filed by the petitioner is that the petitioner-Trade Union was registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. The Nuclear Power Stations and the projects all over India are under the control of the second respondent-Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (hereinafter called as "NPCIL"), a company under Section 617 of the Companies Act. It is fully owned, controlled and administered by the Government of India, the first respondent herein. The nuclear power project was commenced by the second respondent NPCIL at Kudankulam in Tirunelveli District during March 2002. The third respondent is the said project. There are about 550 employees employed by the third respondent. About 250 of them belong to workmen cadre and the others belong to supervisory, executives and administrative cadres. The third respondent is a factory within the meaning of Section 2(m) of the Factories Act and thus an establishment under Section 2(e) of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act 1946 (hereinafter called "the Act"). The third respondent submitted a draft standing orders containing 63 clauses under Section 3 of the Act to the 5th respondent for certification of the same. When the 3rd respondent submitted the draft standing orders before the 5th respondent for certification of the same, there was no trade union of the 3rd respondent in existence. As per rule 6 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) (Central) Rules, the 5th respondent has to call for a meeting of all the workmen to elect three representatives to whom a copy of the draft standing orders together with a notice in Form-II issued under Section 5 of the Act should be forwarded. The 5th respondent failed to discharge the above said statutory duties. Instead, his subordinate, namely, the Labour Enforcement Officer, selected 10 workmen in consultation with the 3rd respondent management to participate in the certification proceeding before the 5th respondent. This is contrary to the said Rule 6.

12. Mr. P.Subbaraj, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 4 to 6, has submitted that sufficient opportunity has been given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order dated 27.1.2005. He has further submitted that since there was no union operating in the establishment, the Labour Enforcement officer (Central), Tuticorin was directed to nominate duly elected five representatives from the establishment. Hence, the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Tuticorin also nominated 4 persons who are office bearers of Kudankulam Nuclear Power Employees Union. He has further submitted that the hearing was held on 15.12.2004 and after having deliberations of each and every clause in detail and after explaining to the representatives of the workmen about the same, the impugned order has been passed. According to the learned counsel, the representatives of the workmen during the hearing submitted that they have gone through the draft orders and they have no objection whatsoever.

13. Before dealing with the arguments advanced on the side of the petitioner as well as the respondents, it is necessary to extract hereunder the order of this Court dated 16.11.2005 when the above writ petition came up for admission:-

"The petitioner is Kudankulam Nuclear Power Employees Union rep. by its General Secreatry. The issue involved in this writ petition relates to the Certification of Standing orders in respect of M/s.Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project, a unit of Nuclear Power corporation of India limited, Kudankulam. the petitioner has questioned the impugned Certification on the ground that the members of the Union have not been given sufficient opportunity to submit their objections to the Draft Standing orders in spite of such request.

To

1. The Government of India, rep. by its Secretary, Labour Department, New Delhi.

2. The Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd, rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Anu Sakthi Nagar, Mumbai.

3. The Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project, rep. by its Project Director, Kudankulam, Tirunelveli District.

4. The Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Sastri Bhavan, Chennai-6.

6. The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Shram Raksha Bhavan, Sivasrushti Road, Eastern Express High way, Sion, Mumbai-22.