NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPORATION LABOUR AND STAFF UNION Vs. MANAGEMENT OF NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPORATION LTD , NEYVELI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Nevveli Lignite Corporation Labour and Staff Union is the appellant in this writ appeal. It was.the petition in W. P. No. 7480 of 1983, We propose to refer to the appellant as the "petitioner Union" for the sake of convenience. Admittedly, the petitioner Union is not one which , was accorded recognition under the Code of Discipline, bv the Management of Neweli Lignite Corporation Ltd.. which was ' the respondent in the writ petition, which . again is the respondent in this writ appeal. On 22-9-1972. the respondent, after recording that onlv two Unions have been accorded recognition under the Code of Discipline, decided to have discussions with other Unions also, including the petitioner Union. However, on 27-6-1983. the respondent chose not to deal with anv Union other than five Unions enumerated in the letter of that date The petitioner Union is not one of the five Unions. This formed the provocation for the petitioner Union to apply to this Court in W. P., No. 7480 of 1983 with a prayer to quash the said letter. Shanmukham. J. who heard the matter, could not countenance the points urged before him and was obliged to dismiss the writ petition. That is how the petitioner Union has come to prefer this writ appeal.

(2.) Mr. N. G. R. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Union, urged before us two points. The first point was that though the petitioner Union is not one recognized under the Code of Discipline, vet by virtue of the ratio enunciated bv two pronouncements of this Court, the petitioner Union must continue to have the right to negotiate with the respondent and that the petitioner Union cannot be excluded from such a right of negotiation bv the impugned letter. The first pronouncement is that of Mohan. J. in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Accounts and Executive Staff Union V/s. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,19801 2 LLJ 246. This iudgment of the learned single Judge has been confirmed bv a Bench of this Court consisting of M. M. Ismail. C. J. and Sathar Saveed. J. in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board V/s. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Accounts and Executive Staff Union, 1980 2 LLJ 440The principle that has been recognized bv the Bench is succinctly set out in paragraph 6 of the iudgment at page 442 of the report, and the passage runs as follows:

(3.) The facts of the nresent case cannot be brought within the dicta of the Bench of this Court. The petitioner Union has not been recognized under the Code of DisciDline bv the respondent. As pointed out bv the Bench, there is no statutory provision dealing with the question of recognition or de-recognition. The Bench has taken note of the recognition under the Code of Discipline as giving the union so recognized, a status to represent the workers in a Darticular category. A sporadic or. for that matter, a continuous negotiation by a' Darticular body. which does not have anv manner of recognition under the Code of Discipline with the management cannot elevate such a bodv as having acquired a status and to insist that it has acquired a right to represent the workmen in matters of negotiation with the management and that right should not be withdrawn. It is only the Code of Discipline in an industry that contemplates recognition and recognition, obviously, has got to be applied for and sanctioned. The respondent has clearly kept up the distinction between recognized Unions and other Unions and merely because the respondent indulged in negotiation with unrecognized Unions like the petitioner Union, it will not give them a status in the eve of law. We do not find any warrant to enlarge the scope of the principles recognized bv the Bench in the above case. Rightlv. Shanmukham. J., points out that the matter does not involve violation of any right, not to speak, of any fundamental right. We are in complete agreement with the learned Judge.