Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10. The Code of Discipline which is the basis of the impugned order has no statutory force. It was at best a private arrangement. No writ will lie to enforce the provisions therein. Besides I find that there was no such provision as, contended by the appellants that they have a right to recognition. It was argued that the Code of Discipline has an "uniformly accepted principal of one trade union being given the representative status to represent the workmen establishment-wise or industry-wise". But the Code of Discipline makes it a condition that a union may claim to be recognised as a representative union provided it has a membership of at least 25 per cent of the workers of that industry in that area and that where there are other unions in an industry or establishment, the one with the largest membership should be recognised. Surely by that test the impugned order does not commit any breach either of the statute or regulations or the Constitution.
15. The other point raised on behalf of the appellants almost goes by admission. The Code of Discipline is not a statutory rule and violation of the said code is not within the jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution. It has been conceded by Mr. Dutta appearing for the appellants.
16. The last point is whether the petitioners-appellants have any locus standi to maintain this application. It is said that the union of employees could not as such maintain the application. The union in that case would not be a citizen within the meaning of Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India. That is why the appellants individually and in a representative capacity instituted the proceedings. But the writ asked for is a writ for mandamus or certiorari to cancel and quash the order of de-recognition of the Employees' Union. That is purely a union's right qua union. As pointed out in Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India :
The recognition or de-recognition of a union being a matter of private arrangement under the Code of Discipline which has no statutory force whatsoever cannot obviously confer on the appellants either individually or in a representative capacity the right to ask for such recognition or to complain against de-recognition of the union. Rights, if any, belong to the union of employees and as the union cannot file the writ and as the appellants individually or in a representative capacity cannot file the writ, their remedy, if any, would lie in a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure. There is one aspect of the facts which has some bearing on this point. The results of the verification of membership have already been stated elsewhere in this judgment. The Air Corporation Employees' Union, respondent No. 5, has different regional offices one of which is situated at Calcutta, one at Delhi, one at Hyderabad and another at Bombay. In Calcutta region above 2500 employees of the Indian Airlines are members of the said union of which approximately about 750 employees belong to the category 3 to 9. It is stated that the Union, respondent No. 5, was duly registered with the Registrar of Trade Unions, Delhi. Section 13 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926, provides:
Every registered trade union shall be a body corporate by the name under which it is registered, and shall have perpetual succession and a common seal with power to acquire and hold both movable and immovable property and to contract, and shall, by the said name, sue and be sued.
Respondent No. 5 is a registered trade union. It is stated that the respondent Indian Aircraft Technicians' Association, which is respondent No. 6, applied to the authorities concerned for recognition and thereafter respondent No. 4, the Indian Airlines, started verification regarding the membership of the respective unions in accordance with the Code of Discipline which was evolved in 1959. At the instance of some of the disgruntled individuals who were unsuccessful in obtaining control over the affairs of the said union, (sic) formed the union with some members from the workmen in the engineering department. The respondent No. 5 union contended that the verification of the membership of the union was not permitted under the Code of Discipline whereupon three members of the union moved This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity and/or propriety of the verification proceedings. A rule was issued and an interim order was granted. The Civil Rule is numbered Civil Revision Case No. 5825(W) of 1968. It is stated that the Regional Secretary of the Air Corporation Employees' Union, Hyderabad Region, filed an application before the Andhra Pradesh High Court by the said Secretary but ultimately the said application was withdrawn. It appears that the interim order passed in Civil Rule No. 5825 (W) of 1968 was vacated by the order, dated the 5th March, 1969. Against the said order vacating the interim order an appeal was filed before This Court. The said appeal is pending. The question has been raised how far these proceedings are a bar to the present one. In the view that we are taking, it is unnecessary to express any opinion on the point.