VAYALAR RAVI Vs. GOVT. OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner and respondent 3 are well known trade union leaders. They were appointed labour trustees of the Cochin Port Trust Board under S. 3(l)(c)(i) of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 (Act 38 of 1963), referred to hereinafter as the Act, on the basis of the verification of the membership strength of the Unions as on 31-12-1974, on the reconstitution of the Board with effect from 1-4-1979, the former being the nominee of the Cochin Port Trust Workers Union affiliated to the Hindustan Mazdoor Sabha (H.M.S.) and the latter being the nominee of the Cochin Harbour Workers Union affiliated to the Indian National Trade Union Congress (I.N.T.U.C.). The validity of these appointments was challenged by the Cochin Port Employees Organisation affiliated to the Central India Trade Union (C.I.T.U.) in O. P. No. 2769 of 1979-K which was disposed of by this Court as per the judgment dated 28-11-1979, a true copy of which is Ext. PI. In the operative portion of Ext. P-l judgment this Court directed the respondent 1, the Union of India, to take all necessary steps to review the nomination of the petitioner and respondent 3, who were arrayed as respondents 4 and 3 respectively in that writ petition, on the basis of the new verification data furnished by the Labour Ministry and make nomination in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. From the discussion in paras 12 to 14 of the judgment it is found that the Union registers were checked and statistics taken only till the end of Dec. 1974, for certain reasons the verification for the year ending with Dec. 1976 could not be carried out, so also a list was not ready for the period ending with 31-12-1978. That necessitated the appointment of the petitioner and respondent 3 on the reconstitution of the Board on 1-4- 1979 on the basis of the verification of the figures for the year ending with 31-12-1974, the materials available on record not having been found sufficient to enable the Court to come to a definite conclusion as to whether the petitioner and respondent 3 (respondents 4 and 3 in that O.P.) were nominated on the basis that the Trade Unions which recommended them represented the majority workers of the Port, and considering the assurance given in para 13 of the counter affidavit of respondent 1, the Union of India, and in para 3 of Ext. P4 produced in that writ petition, and the representation made by the Central Government pleader on behalf of respondent 1 (Union of India) at the time of the hearing that verification work of the figures for the year ending with 31-12-1978 was over and the materials had been forwarded to the Chief Labour Commissioner, this Court had to rest content by giving the direction referred to above without deciding the issue finally.

(2.) Now to pick up the thread of events, respondent 1, the Union of India, on 15-2- 1980 in exercise of the powers under cl. (aa) of sub-s. (1) of S. 8 of the Act issued a notification, a true copy of which is Ext. P3, removing respondent 3 and the petitioner, representing the labour employed in the Port of Cochin, from the Board of Trustees of the Port of Cochin. Soon thereafter a letter No. Bd/5136/65/S dated 17-2-1980, a true copy of which is Ext. P2 was addressed to the Secretary of the Cochin Port Staff Association by the Cochin Port Trust, therein making reference to Ext. PI judgment, the addressee was requested to sponsor two names for the consideration of the Government for fresh nomination of the two labour representatives on the Board of Trustees. This was followed by respondent is notification dated 1-3-1980, a true copy of which is Ext. P4, in exercise of the powers under cl. (c) of sub-sec. (1) of S. 3 read with sub-sec. (3) of S. 10 of the Act, appointing the petitioner, being the President of the Cochin Port Trust Association, and one Sri K. P. Subramanya Menon being the Secretary General of the Cochin Port Employees Organisation to be trustees representing the labour employed in the Port of Cochin on the board of Trustees for the Port of Cochin for the period up to 31st March 1981. On 1st April 1981 respondent 2, the Cochin Port Trust, informed the petitioner that his term as Trustee of the Port Trust Board will continue up to 31-3-1982 in terms of the statutory provisions, the reference obviously being to S. 7(2)(a) of the Act which provides that every person elected or appointed by name to be a Trustee shall hold office to which he is elected or so appointed, for a term of two years commencing on the 1st day of April next following his election or appointment, as the case may be. Then finally comes the impugned show cause notice dated 27-7-1981, a true copy of which is Ext. P7, issued by respondent 1, the Union of India, calling upon the petitioner to send by 17-8-1981 positively representation, if any, he might like to make in regard to the proposal to remove him from the trusteeship of the Cochin Port Trust Board under the provisions of S. 8(l)(aa) of the Act. The substantial prayer in the writ petition is for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing Ext. P7 notice and directing respondent 1, Union of India to forbear from proceeding further pursuant to the said notice.

(3.) Sri S. A. Nagendran, the counsel for the petitioner, submitted that Ext. P7 notice is without jurisdiction and is vitiated by mala fides and as such it is liable to be quashed. Sri M. M. Abdul Azeez, the Central Government Pleader appearing for respondent 1, Union of India, and Sri P. Balagangadhara Menon, the counsel for respondent 3, took the stand that a notice in the nature of Ext. P7 was perfectly within the jurisdiction of the Central Government and therefore the writ petition was premature and as such liable to be dismissed. Both of them sought to justify Ext. P7 notice on the merits of the case also. Sri Menon also took objection to the petitioner having filed the writ petition making allegations against respondent 3, and obtained a stay of Ext. P7 which was of vital concern to respondent 3 without impleading him in the writ petition and for having challenged Ext. P7 order knowing fully well that in his very appointment order Ext. P4 he was reminded that he was liable to be removed under S. 8(l)(aa) of the Act. Sri P. K. Kurian, the counsel for respondent 2, the Cochin Port Trust, while showing keen interest in regard to the possible interpretation that could be placed on S. 8(l)(aa) of the Act, made it abundantly clear that the Port Trust was not taking sides in the fight between the petitioner on the one hand and respondent 3 on the other. A writ of certiorari for quashing a show cause notice would not ordinarily be issued as rightly pointed out by Sri Menon. The petitioner's objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that it was premature was sought to be met by Sri Nagendran on the ground that where the notice was issued without the sanction of law, it is without jurisdiction and as such it is liable to be quashed. Additionally or alternatively he contended that the issue of notice was the outcome of the mala fide exercise of power, and for that reason also Ext. P7 is liable to be quashed.