INTERNATIONAL AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA WORKERS UNION Vs. INTERNATIONAL AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dispute between two rival unions, one International Airports Authority of India Workers' Union (in brief 'wu') and the other International Airports Authority Employees' Union (in brief 'eu') has reached this court routing through High court for recognition as the majority union. Long arguments were advanced both on behalf ofthe two rival unions, the management and the government. But it appeals unnecessary to enter into the larger issues raised by the parties as we are of the opinion, that in the circumstances to be stated hereinafter, it is just and proper that fresh elections should be held to determine the majority character of the union which could be recognised by the International Airports Authority of India.

(2.) Earlier elections had taken place in 1978, 1982 and 1987. In the elections in 1987 it was the WU which was elected and given recognition by the Authority concerned. The period during which recognition was to operate came to an end in March 1989. But the management did not succeed in holding the elections as dispute arose between WU and EU if the subsequent recognition could be held by secret ballot. As the management appeared to agree to proceed with recognition by secret ballot, the wu filed a suit in the court of Civil Judge, Delhi for permanent injunction. Whereas the EU filed a writ petition in the Delhi High court for direction to the management to hold fresh elections as the period of recognition was over. One of the reliefs sought in the writ petition was that the elections should be got conducted by secret ballot under the supervision of central government. The application for Injunction in the suit filed by the WU was dismissed in February. 1991. Consequently the management announced that the elections shall be held on 25/03/1991. The WU immediately Filed a writ petition in the Madras High court which was dismissed on 22/03/1991. Having lost first in the suit filed at Delhi and then in the writ petition filed at Madras the WU approached the management and arrived at an agreement on 22/03/1991 before the Conciliation Officer/dy. Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) that they were willing to participate in the election to be held ID accordance with memorandum issued by the government of India, Ministry of Labour on 18/12/1980 by secret ballot to be conducted by the CIRM. It was funher agreed that the election shall be held within one inonth from the date of afferent, that is, on or before 23/04/1991, Since it was the WU wim-b ww delaying and obstructing the holding of election but It agreed for It the management approached the EU but they did not agree for postponement of the election. The management had sent intimation to the EU to come and participate in the talks which were to be held between the management and the EU on 22/03/1991. Whether such intimation was received by EU or not is not material but this much is clear that EU was not willing for postponement of elections any more. Consequently the management was left with no option and on 24th March it informed the WU that since the other party was not agreeable it was not possible to postpone the election which shall take place as announced on 25/03/1991. It is undisputedthat the WU which has its branches at Delhi, Calcutta, Bombay and Madras and each wing of which participates in the elections boycotted the elections. Reasons for doing so were slated to be many. But at least this much is clear that there was not enough time for various wings of the union to be intimated that the decision taken on 22/03/1991 between the management and the union stood annulled and the elections shall go on as scheduled.

(3.) Reason for non-porticipation of WU in the circumstances was seeking its remedy in court of law. Whether it was justified or not and whatever be the effect of non-participation of the WU In the elections held before the authorities the equities between parties can be adjusted by issuing following directions: