PETROLEUM EMPLOYEES UNION Vs. CHIEF LABOUR COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-trade union by this petition challenges the process initiated for verification of the membership of the trade union operating in the establishment to find out which trade union commands support of the majority of the workers. The case of the petitioner-trade union in nutshell is that they had given their consent for carrying out process of verification of membership of trade union by secret ballot pursuant to the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1785 of 1997 dated 5th May, 1998 Oil and Natural Gas Commission Karmachari Sanghatana Vs. Ministry of Petroleum, and as now by its judgment in the case Air India Employees GuildVs. Air India Ltd., 2007 1 BCR 529, the Full Bench of this Court has overruled the judgment of the Division Bench in Writ Petition No. 1785 of 1997 dated 5th May, 1998, now the process of verification of membership of the trade union by secret ballot system cannot be carried out. In our opinion, the petition cannot be entertained for various reasons. Firstly, the case of the petitioner that it had given its consent for verification of the membership of the trade union by system of secret ballot after the order dated 5th May, 1998 was made in Writ Petition No. 1785 of 1997, is false. Perusal of the minutes of the meeting held with the Presiding and the General secretaries of the recognised unions in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation dated 13th July, 1996 shows that the President of the petitioner Association participated in that meeting. The relevant portion of the resolution No. 2 reads thus:-The method of recognition by secret ballot was agreed upon by all the recognized unions except representative of ONGC employees union, Tripura who were of the view that it may not be possible to conduct free and fair elections in view of the prevailing law and order situation at Agartala.

(2.) So far as the reliance placed on the judgment of the Full Bench is concerned, in our opinion, merely because the Full Bench has said that the law laid down by the Division Bench in the above referred judgment is overruled, will not take away the binding effect of the writ issued by the Division Bench. The judgment of the Division Bench will continue to bind the parties to the writ petition though the law on the basis of which that writ was issued has been subsequently found to be erroneous by the Full Bench. It is further to be noted here that the Full Bench in paragraph (6) of its judgment has held that the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the case Food Corporation of India referred to above, are not relevant because they are based on the consent of the parties, and therefore, according to the Full Bench, the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case Food Corporation of India does not lay down any law. What is to be seen here is that even according to the Full Bench if the system of secret ballot is introduced because of the consent of the trade Unions involved, then that system can go on, unless the policy decision which was taken by the Corporation on the basis of the consent given by the parties is set aside by the appropriate Court of Law. In the present case as noted above, the petitioner-Union had itself given its consent, in the year 1996 and also subsequently, for adoption of the secret ballot system and therefore, in our opinion, what is said by the Supreme Court in the judgment in the case Food Corporation of India referred to above will be relevant in this case and not that is said by the Full Bench in its judgment in the Air India Employees Guild referred to above. What is further pertinent to be noted is that the petitioner-Union was recognized as majority union by the employer pursuant to the secret ballot held in the year 2004 for a term of two years. That term of two years is over and therefore, the process of secret ballot was initiated again. The petitioner-Union filed this petition and obtained interim order as a result of which the process of secret ballot is not completed and the petitioner-Union continues to enjoy the status of recognized Union. In our opinion, this conduct of the petitioner-Union dis-entitles it to any relief at the hands of this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction. If it was genuinely felt by the petitioner-Union that the system of secret ballot is invalid, it first should have given up its status as recognized union and then should have filed this petition. The conduct of the petitioner of enjoying the status of recognized union which is secured by it by following the same system and then challenging it and preventing further verification of membership, in our opinion, dis-entitles the petitioner to any relief. The petition, in our opinion, therefore, deserves to be rejected. It is accordingly rejected.

(3.) At this stage, a request is made that the process of holding the verification should be stayed. In our opinion, that will not be proper because the petitioner is enjoying the status of recognized Union though the term is over long back. The process has also been completed, only the ballots have to be opened now. The request is rejected.