Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.24 seconds)
Karnataka State Road Transport ... vs The Workmen, Ksrtc Staff And Workers ... on 28 October, 2004
cites
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 311 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 9 in Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
M.P. Oil Extraction And Anr. Etc vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors on 9 July, 1997
8. Sri L. Govindraj, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants challenging the correctness of the impugned judgment submitted that in the absence of any statutory right conferred on a union or its members, the decision taken by the Corporation laying down guidelines as to the circumstances under which a Federation/Union is entitled to be recognised is not subject to judicial review by this Court in exercise of its power either under Article 226 or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, It is the submission of the learned Counsel that the change of procedure for recognition of the unions was devised by the Corporation after due deliberations and with a view to permit democratic content and for the purpose of providing broader representation to prevent hegemony and monopoly of a single Federation or union which is not in the interest of both labour and the Corporation. It is his submission that since the Federation has no right to be recognised in law, it is for the employer to decide as to whether one or more unions in the establishment should be recognised; and what is the mode or method of such recognition. He pointed out that it is for the first time in December 1987 for the period commencing from 1st January 1988 to 31St December 1991 the Federation was given recognition by the Corporation and thereafter again from \5th July 1992 to 15th July 1996, the Federation was given recognition. It is also his submission that the policy decision notified in Anncxure-A is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. He also pointed out that in the State of Tamil Nadu whoever has got 10 per cent membership is given recognition and six federations have been recognised and in Kerala State under the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, the union which has got 20 per cent membership is given recognition and five federations have been recognised. Therefore, it is his submission that the policy decision taken by the Corporation as per Anncxure-A is also fair and reasonable and consistent with the policy decision taken by similar Corporations in the neighbouring stales. Learned Counsel in support of his contentions that the policy decision taken by the Corporation is not liable to be interfered with by this Court relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union Of India v. Dinesh Engineering Corporation and Anr., , in the case of Federation Of Railway Officers Association v. Union Of India, ; in the case of Comptroller And Auditor General v. Kamalesh Vadilal Mehta, ; in the case of Sher Singh and Ors. v. Union Of India and Ors., in the case of M.P. Oil Extraction and Anr. v. State Of M.P. and Ors., (1997) 8 SCC 592 ; in the case of DELHI SCIENCE FORUM and Ors. v. UNION OF INDIA and Ors., in the; case of Balco Employees Union (Regd.) v. Union Of India and Ors., ; in the case of Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union Of India and Ors., ; in the case of Chairman, State Bank Of India and Anr. v. All Orissa State Bank Officers Association and Anr., 2004 SCC ( I. & S) 115 : and in the case of R.K. Garg v. Union Of India and Ors., .
Delhi Science Fortum & Ors vs Union Of India & Anr on 19 February, 1996
8. Sri L. Govindraj, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants challenging the correctness of the impugned judgment submitted that in the absence of any statutory right conferred on a union or its members, the decision taken by the Corporation laying down guidelines as to the circumstances under which a Federation/Union is entitled to be recognised is not subject to judicial review by this Court in exercise of its power either under Article 226 or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, It is the submission of the learned Counsel that the change of procedure for recognition of the unions was devised by the Corporation after due deliberations and with a view to permit democratic content and for the purpose of providing broader representation to prevent hegemony and monopoly of a single Federation or union which is not in the interest of both labour and the Corporation. It is his submission that since the Federation has no right to be recognised in law, it is for the employer to decide as to whether one or more unions in the establishment should be recognised; and what is the mode or method of such recognition. He pointed out that it is for the first time in December 1987 for the period commencing from 1st January 1988 to 31St December 1991 the Federation was given recognition by the Corporation and thereafter again from \5th July 1992 to 15th July 1996, the Federation was given recognition. It is also his submission that the policy decision notified in Anncxure-A is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. He also pointed out that in the State of Tamil Nadu whoever has got 10 per cent membership is given recognition and six federations have been recognised and in Kerala State under the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, the union which has got 20 per cent membership is given recognition and five federations have been recognised. Therefore, it is his submission that the policy decision taken by the Corporation as per Anncxure-A is also fair and reasonable and consistent with the policy decision taken by similar Corporations in the neighbouring stales. Learned Counsel in support of his contentions that the policy decision taken by the Corporation is not liable to be interfered with by this Court relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union Of India v. Dinesh Engineering Corporation and Anr., , in the case of Federation Of Railway Officers Association v. Union Of India, ; in the case of Comptroller And Auditor General v. Kamalesh Vadilal Mehta, ; in the case of Sher Singh and Ors. v. Union Of India and Ors., in the case of M.P. Oil Extraction and Anr. v. State Of M.P. and Ors., (1997) 8 SCC 592 ; in the case of DELHI SCIENCE FORUM and Ors. v. UNION OF INDIA and Ors., in the; case of Balco Employees Union (Regd.) v. Union Of India and Ors., ; in the case of Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union Of India and Ors., ; in the case of Chairman, State Bank Of India and Anr. v. All Orissa State Bank Officers Association and Anr., 2004 SCC ( I. & S) 115 : and in the case of R.K. Garg v. Union Of India and Ors., .
Balco Employees Union (Regd.) vs Union Of India & Ors on 10 December, 2001
In the case of Federation of Railway Officers Association (supra), while examining the correctness of the challenge made to the formation of seven Railway Zones, the Supreme Court took the view that on matters affecting policy and required technical expertise, the Court would leave the matter for decision of those who are qualified to address the issues and unless the policy is so inconsistent with the constitution and laws or arbitrary or irrational or abusing the Court will not interfere with such matters, in the case of Balco Employees' Union (supra), the Supreme Court observed thus:
Narmada Bachao Andolan vs Union Of India And Others on 18 October, 2000
14. From the law laid down by the Apex Court in the decisions referred to above and other decisions, as noticed by us earlier, this Court will not interfere in respect of the policy decisions taken either by the Government or its authorities unless such policy decisions are either arbitrary, unreasonable or discriminatory in nature or violative of other rights guaranteed under the provisions of the Constitution or a Statute or is activated by mala fides. Therefore, keeping these principles in mind, we arc required to examine the validity of Clause (d) of the notification-Annexure-A referred to above. To our mind, it appears that the provision made in Annexure-A providing for such of those Unions/ Federations who secure 33.3 per cent or more valid votes are eligible for recognition either at the Corporation level or at the divisional level are not liable to be struck down either on the ground it is arbitrary, unreasonable or discriminatory in nature or is violative of any statutory rights guaranteed to the 1St respondent - Federation or the employees of the Corporation. As rightly pointed out by Sri Govindraj, the Corporation being the employee employing over 65,000 employees along with the sister Corporations has taken a policy decision laying down the criteria for a Union or a Federation or an Association in the Corporation to be eligible for recognition. We do not find anything wrong in the criteria laid down in Annexure-A. The criteria laid down applies equally to all the Unions/ Federation or an Association of employees of the Corporation. No one Union or Federation of the employees is picked up for either preferential treatment or hostile discrimination. We are unable to accede to the submission of Sri Narasimhan that if more than one union is given recognition, it would weaken the capacity of the labour to bargain with the management and it would be against the interest of labour. It is necessary to point out that even in the scheme formulated under Clause (d) of the notification - Annexure -A, in a given situation, it is possible for one Union or a Federation alone to be recognised if such Union or Federation secures the support of more than 66.7 per cent or more valid votes. Therefore, the scheme formulated under Clause (d) of the notification provides for an opportunity to a Union or a Federation of employees to earn the goodwill of a large number of its employees and get itself recognised as a sole bargaining agent with the Corporation. When the scheme provides for an opportunity to any particular Union or Federation to secure the support of more than 66.7 per cent of its members and get itself recognised as a sole bargaining agent, as against the claim of other Union or Federations, we are unable to appreciate the contention of Sri Narasimhan how such a scheme would go against the interest of the employees. Even otherwise, the possibility of two or more unions being recognised on the basis of the percentage of valid votes, they are likely to poll in the referendum in our view, cannot be a ground to declare such a provision as illegal. It is not possible to take the view that such a provision is either arbitrary, unreasonable or discriminatory in nature; and recognition of more than one union by the Corporation is against the interest of labour or employees of the Corporation. As noticed by us earlier, the decision taken by the Corporation is in the nature of a policy decision. It is well settled merely because another or a different view could be taken than the one taken by the authorities, is not a ground for the Courts to interfere against such a policy decision. We are of the considered view that recognition of more than one union, as rightly pointed out by Sri Govindraj, would provide for each Union to work for the betterment of its members or the employees of the Corporation so that each Union or Federation may earn the goodwill and secure the support of large number of employees of the Corporation and get recognition of the Corporation either as a sole bargaining agent or along with one or other Unions, further when there is any issue or dispute relating to the welfare of the employees or labour is involved, it is open to all the Unions to join together and to put forward a common demand and bargain with the Corporation unitedly. If there are more than one union, we are inclined to think that each Union could be the watch dog of the activities of the other unions so far as the interest of the labour or employees of the Corporation is concerned. We do not find any merit in the submission of Sri Narasimhan that since the 1st respondent - Federation was recognised as the sole bargaining agent on the basis of the referendum taken in the years 1987 and 1992, it is not permissible for the Corporation to issue the impugned notification laying down the fresh guidelines for recognition of a Union/Federation of its employees in the Corporation. It is also necessary to point out that the recognition made in the year 1992 was only for a period of four years. Further, we are also unable to accede to the submission of Sri Narasimhan that since the steps were taken to hold the referendum and the returning officer was appointed for the said purpose, the Corporation is estopped from going back on that and therefore, the notification - Annexure~A is liable to be quashed. In our view, it is permissible for the Corporation as an employer in the course of its management or administration to change its policy regarding recognition of the unions formed by its employees at any time so long as it is not made as a part of the settlement entered into between the management and the labour. Sri Narasimhan has not been able to point out any settlement arrived at between the Corporation and the Federation wherein the Corporation has agreed to recognize only one Union. Therefore, we are of the view that the learned Judge was not justified in taking the view that the impugned notification - Annexure A is not valid in law. In our view, none of the decisions relied upon by Sri Narasimhan referred to above is of any assistance to him to support the contentions advanced by him; and therefore, we are of the view it is unnecessary to refer to the principles enunciated in the said decisions. In the light of the above conclusion, the order impugned in these appeals is liable to be set aside. However, it is necessary to point out that the steps for holding the referendum was taken as back as in the month of July 1996 and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that it would be in the interest of justice to direct the Corporation to take steps from the beginning to hold the referendum pursuant to notification - Annexure -A, instead of proceeding from the stage it has been intercepted by virtue of the interim order granted in the Writ Petition. Therefore, in the light of the discussion made above, we make the following order:
Chairman, State Bank Of India And Anr. vs All Orissa State Bank Officers ... on 6 May, 2002
8. Sri L. Govindraj, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants challenging the correctness of the impugned judgment submitted that in the absence of any statutory right conferred on a union or its members, the decision taken by the Corporation laying down guidelines as to the circumstances under which a Federation/Union is entitled to be recognised is not subject to judicial review by this Court in exercise of its power either under Article 226 or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, It is the submission of the learned Counsel that the change of procedure for recognition of the unions was devised by the Corporation after due deliberations and with a view to permit democratic content and for the purpose of providing broader representation to prevent hegemony and monopoly of a single Federation or union which is not in the interest of both labour and the Corporation. It is his submission that since the Federation has no right to be recognised in law, it is for the employer to decide as to whether one or more unions in the establishment should be recognised; and what is the mode or method of such recognition. He pointed out that it is for the first time in December 1987 for the period commencing from 1st January 1988 to 31St December 1991 the Federation was given recognition by the Corporation and thereafter again from \5th July 1992 to 15th July 1996, the Federation was given recognition. It is also his submission that the policy decision notified in Anncxure-A is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. He also pointed out that in the State of Tamil Nadu whoever has got 10 per cent membership is given recognition and six federations have been recognised and in Kerala State under the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, the union which has got 20 per cent membership is given recognition and five federations have been recognised. Therefore, it is his submission that the policy decision taken by the Corporation as per Anncxure-A is also fair and reasonable and consistent with the policy decision taken by similar Corporations in the neighbouring stales. Learned Counsel in support of his contentions that the policy decision taken by the Corporation is not liable to be interfered with by this Court relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union Of India v. Dinesh Engineering Corporation and Anr., , in the case of Federation Of Railway Officers Association v. Union Of India, ; in the case of Comptroller And Auditor General v. Kamalesh Vadilal Mehta, ; in the case of Sher Singh and Ors. v. Union Of India and Ors., in the case of M.P. Oil Extraction and Anr. v. State Of M.P. and Ors., (1997) 8 SCC 592 ; in the case of DELHI SCIENCE FORUM and Ors. v. UNION OF INDIA and Ors., in the; case of Balco Employees Union (Regd.) v. Union Of India and Ors., ; in the case of Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union Of India and Ors., ; in the case of Chairman, State Bank Of India and Anr. v. All Orissa State Bank Officers Association and Anr., 2004 SCC ( I. & S) 115 : and in the case of R.K. Garg v. Union Of India and Ors., .