N RAMACHANDRA GOWDA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Robert Bruce attempted, it is said, seven times to succeed, but the 4th respondent achieved the goal at the second attempt itself.

(2.) The controversy centres round the nomination to the Board of Trustees of the 2nd respondent Port. Under Section 3 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Central Government, the 1st respondent herein, constitutes a Board of Trustees of the Port which shall consist of persons 17 in number in the case of Port as in the nature of the 3rd respondent to represent various interests mentioned therein. The Central Government should be satisfied that said nominees would be capable of representing the interest they represent as referred to in Section 3(1) of the Act. Section 3(1)(c)(i)(1) refers to nominees to represent the Labour employed in the Port. The proviso to the said section provides that while making the nomination to the said Board of Trustees to represent the Labour intetest, the representatives of the Labour employed in the Port, the Central Government shall obtain the opinion of the Trade Unions composed of persons employed in the Port.

(3.) The 4th respondent, as Office Bearer of the Kanara Stevedoring Workers Union C/o INTUC Office K.S.R.M. Street, Mangalore, filed Writ Petition No. 7538/95 praying, inter alia, that the Central Government be directed to choose the Labour representatives after holding a referendum by conducting a secret ballot among the labourers and after deciding as to which Union has the majority membership of the workers and accept the nominees made by the majority Union as the two representatives to the Board of Trustees. This Court by its judgment negatived the plea. In doing so, this Court held as hereunder:"3. In short, the argument and contention urged by the petitioners is that the nomination of the two labour representatives to the Board of Trustees should be as suggested by the Trade Union who claims majority membership of the labourers of the Port. As we have seen earlier, the statutory provision does not support such a contention. All that the statute requires is that the Central Govetnment may nominate such number of persons who are in the "opinion of the Government capable of representing" the interests of the labour employed in the Port. This is to be done by the Central Government on its coming to the satisfaction that the person being nominated is capable of representing the labour interest. The Trade Union cannot certainly control the exercise of this power by the Government in any manner except to the extent indicated in the proviso. All Trade Unions, irrespective of its strength, can tender their opinion in the matter. The Central Government is free to take into account the opinion of the Trade Union as envisaged in the proviso in the section. The opinion tendered need not rule the decision of the Central Government in this behalf. This is only a piece of material that they may advert to. The statute does not contemplate that the opinion thus tendered shall control the exercise of the power by the Government under Section 3(1)(c)(i) of the Act. While considering the opinion thus offered, the Government need not necessarily be influenced by the fact that the Union that is tendering the opinion is the so-called majority Union. The opinion to be formed by the Government is the subjective opinion of the Government arrived at after taking into account relevant consideration and materials.