KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATIONSTAFF WORKERS FEDERATION Vs. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) different federations of the employees unions of the first respondent-corporation, should be recognised as the recognised sole collective bargaining agent, of all the workmen in Karnataka state road transport corporation, a referendum was held on 11-12-1987. The petitioner having secured 53% of votes polled at the corporate level was accorded recognition by the first respondent, as sole collective bargaining agent of all the workmen in Karnataka state road transport corporation by its official memorandum dated december 24, 1987. That, on july 28, 1988, a memorandum of settlement under Section 18(1) read with Section 2(p) of the industrial disputes Act, 1947, was made between the petitioner-federation and the first respondent-corporation. The said memorandum of settlement is produced at annexure-d. The only subject of the settlement under annexure-d is as to the deduction of the subscription of the members of the unions affiliated to the petitioner-federation from their wages. It is agreed between the petitioner and the management that, the petitioner-federation will ensure that its affiliated unions will give individual authorisation of its member employees to the management on or before 20th of the month to the effect that the amount prescribed by the federation as union subscription can be deducted and paid to the respective unions and the management agreed that the amount deducted towards the union subscription will be transmitted to the credit of account number of the concerned union affiliated to the petitioner-federation. It is further agreed that the federation would give up the facility hitherto extended to the recognised unions for collection of union subscription by two of their representatives, treating the absence of such representatives as on duty on the pay days and, the settlement is agreed to be valid till the recognition accorded to the petitioner-federation exists or until both the parties terminate the terms by mutual consent earlier. This facility is generally known as "pay-roll check-off' facility. The petitioner also entered into a settlement with the management in respect of the service conditions of the employees as per annexure-m, the memorandum of settlement dated july 17, 1989, and the said settlement was in force for a period of four years commencing from 1-1-1988. As the said settlement was due to expire by 31-12-1991, a notification dated december 3, 1991, was issued by the corporation to hold another referendum to determine again as to who could be the sole bargaining agent on behalf of the employees of the first respondent-corporation. Pursuant to the said notification, a referendum was held on january 4, 1992, at which the petitioner again secured the highest number of votes polled and therefore the corporation again accorded recognition to the petitioner as a sole bargaining agent as per official memorandum dated july 16, 1992. It is not in dispute that the corporation continued to deduct the subscription of the members of the unions affiliated to the petitioner-federation from their wages until september, 1993.

(2.) that, even before the 2nd referendum the petitioner-federation submitted its charter of demands. After the referendum and after the petitioner was recognised as sole bargaining agent, the charter of demands were taken up for consideration and ultimately its resulted in a memorandum of understanding dated may 10, 1993, as per annexure-n. The said memorandum of understanding was signed by the petitioner as well as the management in anticipation of the approval of the board of directors and the state government. The board of directors approved the said memorandum of understanding and the same was submitted to the state government for its approval. The state government by its Order dated september 10, 1993, as per annexure-a accorded approval to the memorandum of understanding suggesting certain alterations to the service conditions and further subject to certain other terms and conditions. One of such conditions is that the management would not take up the responsibility of collecting donations or monthly subscriptions from the employees on behalf of their recognised federation or union of employees. Accordingly, the first respondent-corporation issued an Order dated september 21, 1993, withdrawing the pay-roll check-off facility extended to the petitioner till then, with immediate effect.

(3.) the petitioner having been aggrieved by the Order dated september 10, 1993, made by the first respondent as per annexure-b has filed this petition under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India for quashing annexures-a and b by a writ of certiorari.