M A DAVID Vs. KSEB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SOME of the contentions raised before the Single Judge have not been very seriously urged before us: of course, they have also been urged, but not seriously. One of them is that the decisions taken under Ex. P9 were under extraneous political pressure. As the Single Judge has rightly pointed out, the allegations of mala fides are denied in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Board. And it is also averred in the counter affidavit that the Board has taken these decisions bona fide after careful deliberation without being influenced by any extraneous consideration. The Single Judge has accepted the truthfulness and genuineness of these allegations; and we do not think we need reconsider the matter at the appellate stage.

(2.) THE next contention urged is that, though the Board has stated that Ex. P9 has been passed on the principle of recognition of only majority unions this principle has not been strictly adhered to by the Board in giving recognition to some other unions which are not strictly majority unions. In support of this the counsel has pointed out that the union of drivers by name the Kerala State Electricity Board Drivers' Union has been recognised in ex. P9 though it is not a majority union. Here also the averments in the counter affidavit indicate that the drivers form a separate category distinct from the other executive employees and the Drivers' Union represents the majority of the drivers. Thus, on this contention also we agree with the Single judge.

(3.) THE counsel of the appellant-Union and the counsel of the Board have drawn our attention to quite a few decisions, English decisions and decisions of the American Supreme Court. THEy have also drawn our attention to a few decisions of Indian courts. We do not think we need consider all the. decisions cited before us. THE decisions which we think relevant for the purpose of the enquiry before us are Southern Railway Mazdoor Union v. Southern railway ( (1970) I L. L. J. 83) and North-East Frontier Railway Mazdoor Union v. THE General Manager, North-East Frontier Railway ( (1970) 2 L. L. J. 486 ). THE first of these is a decision by a Single Judge of the Madras High Court (Kailasam J.), who was considering Para. 3610 of the Indian Railway establishment Manual. THE said paragraph reads. "government is prepared to accord official recognition to associations of its industrial employees. THE grant and continuance of recognition rests in the discretion of Government, but recognition, when granted, will not be withdrawn without due cause and without giving an opportunity, to the association to show cause against such withdrawal. Note THE term'industrial employees' includes railway servants. " In view of the second sentence of this paragraph, the learned judge has held that, once recognition has been granted and if that recognition has to be withdrawn, an opportunity should be given to the association to show cause against such withdrawal. This conclusion follows from the particular language of Para. 3610 itself, which provides that the grant and continuance of recognition rests in the discretion of the Government and the recognition once granted will not be withdrawn without giving an opportunity to the association to show cause against withdrawal. By the way, this paragraph also indicates that the grant and continuance of recognition rests in the discretion of the Government, the employer. It is evident that this decision cannot be pressed into service in a case like the one before us, where there is no provision of law or statutory rule which confers a right on the appellant-Union similar to the right conferred by Para. 3610 referred to above.