M A DAVID Vs. KSEB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, which has been filed on behalf of a registered trade union by name the Kerala State Electricity Board executive Workers' Union by its Vice President, the relief sought is the quashing of the proceedings of the Kerala Stats Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) evidenced by its resolution Ext. P9 dated 23 21971. Under ext. P9 the Board has announced its decision to give representation on the industrial Relations Council to six categories of employees enumarated therein and to recognise only eight trade unions mentioned in the resolution as the bargaining agents in respect of those categories both for purposes of representation in the INdustrial Relations Council and also for purposes of collective bargaining. The writ petitioner, namely the Kerala State Electricity board Executive Workers' Union , has not been included amongst the eight unions recognised is Ext. P9 as bargaining agents and hence it has come up with this writ petition.

(2.) THE case put forward by the petitioner Union is as follows: By the proceedings of the Board evidenced by Ext. Pi dated 3111966 the petitioner Union had been recognised as a representative Unio n of executive employees and it had been actively taking part in discussions and conferences touching the problems of the executive employees of the Board. THE petitioner Union was also a party to the settlement governing service conditions of the Board's employees and also regarding the bonus for the year 1969 70. Exts. P3 to P6 have been produced by the petitioner to show that the union had been invited by the Chairman of the Board for discussions and talks preceding those settlements and was thus being treated by the Board as a representative Union. By the non-inclusion of the petitioner in the list of recognised unions enumerated in Ext. P9 the Board has deprived the petitioner union of the right to function as as effective bargaining agent and thereby seriously interfered with its lawful activity as an organised trade union. THE recognition by the employer as a bargaining agent is the very essence of the right to organise and form associations and unions which is guaranteed under art. 19 (1) (c) of the Constitution and hence the denial by the Board of such recognition to the petitioner Union constitutes an infringement of the said fundamental right. In any event, since the petitioner Union had been originally granted recognition by the Board under its prior proceedings evidenced by Ext. P1 the Board acted illegally and arbitrarily in divesting the petitioner of its existing status without giving the petitioner any notice or opportunity of making its representations. Hence, Ext. P9 is violative of the principles of natural justice. Further, in making the selection of the unions for the grant of recognition as bargaining agents the Board has followed any reasonable principle or uniform policy and while excluding the petitioner Union which has a membership of more than 2000 employees, recognition has been accorded to certain other unions having only a much lesser membership. This differential treatment constitutes arbitrary discrimination violative of Art. 14 of the constitution. THE impugned proceedings where passed by the Board under the influence of extraneous political pressure brought to bear on it by the concerned Minister of the State Government and by the ruling political parties. On the basis of these allegations made in the writ petition it is contended by the petitioner that the action taken under Ext. P9 is illegal, ultra vires and void.

(3.) LET us first examine whether by reason of the impugned action taken by the Board under Ext. P9 the petitioner Union can be said to have suffered any infraction of its rights so as to entitle it to seek relief from this court under Art. 226 of the Constitution. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the direct consequence of the non-inclusion of the petitioner in the list of recognised unions given in Ext. P9 is to make it impossible for the petitioner Union to effectively discharge its legitimate function of representing its members in matters of collective bargaining. The petitioner contends that this constitutes an unauthorised abridgement of the fundamental right guaranteed under Art. 19 (I) (c) of the Constitution and that hence the action taken by the respondent under Ext. P9 is liable to be called in question under Art. 226 of the Constitution.