AIR INDIA EMPLOYEES GUILD Vs. AIR INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2544 of 2004 has impugned circulars/letters dated 14.1.2004, 13.4.2004, 23.8.2004 and 27.8.2004. By the circular dated 14.1.2004 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, Office of the Regional Labour Commissioner, addressed to various union of Respondent No. 1, stated that the Government of India had decided to undertake verification of membership of the unions operating in Respondent No. 1, Air India, through secret ballot. By the letter dated 9.2.2004 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, conveyed a meeting requesting the various unions operating in Respondent No. 1 to attend the meeting with all relevant documents for the purpose of verification of membership of unions operating in Respondent No. 1 through secret ballot. A specimen copy of consent was enclosed. The proforma of the consent form also had at its subject "Verification of membership of unions operating in Air India". The undertaking in the proforma was in respect of the consent for holding secret ballot for the purpose of recognition of the unions under the Code of Discipline. By the letter dated 23.8.2004 the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner stated that as no consensus had been arrived at between the parties relating to the secret ballot election, it has been decided to hold the election as per the Chief Labour Commissioner's letter dated 13.4.2004 and 13.5.2004.

(2.) In Writ Petition No. 1452 of 2005 the Petitioners have challenged a Notification dated 24.3.2005 issued by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner, notifying a schedule for holding a secret ballot.

(3.) In support of the contention that the secret ballot method for the purpose of verification of membership of unions is arbitrary, Mr. Ashok Shetty and Mr. Deshmukh, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 2544 of 2004 and 1452 of 2005 relied essentially upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Automobile Products of India Employees Union v. Association of Engineering Workers, Bombay and Ors., 1990 2 SCC 444 and Association of Engineering Workers v. Dockyard Labour Union and Ors.. The latter judgment is of three learned Judges of the Supreme Court. They also placed reliance on a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Association of Engineering Workers v. Dockyard Union, 1992 2 CurLR 382. There was no dispute about what the ratio of these judgments is. We may, for convenience, refer only to paragraph 2 of the judgment in Association of Engineering Workers v. Dockyard Labour Union and Ors. , which reads as under: