NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF NUTRITION EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (NON Vs. DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF NUTRITION, TARNAKA, HYDERABAD AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, National Institute of Nutrition Employees Association (Non-Gazetted), which was initially registered under the Societies Registration Act, applied to the 2nd respondent for recognition under ICMR Services (Recognition of Service Associations) Rules, 1979, (for short, the Rules 8). The petitioner also got registered under Trade Union Act in 1987. On 25.6.1987, for certain alleged violations, the first respondent withdrew the recognition accorded to the petitioner. That was challenged in Writ Petition No. 8908 of 1987. On 19.2.1988 this Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of the first respondent dated 25.6.1987 . Thereafter the 2nd respondent gave a show cause notice on 19.3.1988 calling upon the petitioner as to why the recognition should not be withdrawn for alleged contravention of Rule 3 (d) and (e) of the Rules. The petitioner gave reply on 19.3.1988. The explanation was sent directly to the 2nd respondent without routing it through the first respondent. After considering the explanation, the 2nd respondent by proceedings dated 30:3.1988 withdrew the recognition. It is the validity of this order that is assailed in this writ petition.

(2.) The first respondent filed counter-affidavit stating that the petitioner-Association was registered under the Societies Registration Act on Oct. 3,1985. Later on, it got registered under Trade Union Act. It is stated that this respondent, at no point of time, accorded sanction to the petitioner-Association registered under the Trade Union Act. The earlier withdrawal of the recognition by the first respondent and the quashing of the said order by this Court in W.P. No. 8908/87, are admitted. It is stated that the petitioner-Association has chosen to adopt a quarrels attitude with this respondent and that is mainly due to the outsider being elected as the President of the Association. The calm and scientific atmosphere of the first respondent Institute was got disrupted by the members of the petitioner-Association. One of the conditions of recognition is that I.C.M.R. Association should not have any person who is not connected with the I.C.M.R. Therefore, a show cause notice was issued by the 2nd respondent on 16.3.1988. As no satisfactory explanation was offered by the petitioner-Association, the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order de recognising the Association. The impugned order was passed with a view to maintain the discipline of the Institutes functioning under the aegis of the 2nd respondent.

(3.) Smt. Sumalini Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that under the Rules the recognition can be cancelled only for the violation of Rules 4 and 5, but action is taken to withdraw the recognition for violation of Rule 3 (d). Therefore, the impugned order is without any legal basis and is liable to be quashed. She further submits that the show cause notice does not contain any allegation regarding violation of Rule 4 or Rule 5, as such the impugned order for alleged violation of the said Rules is unsustainable. Sri Lohita, the learned counsel for the respondents, contends that this writ petition is not maintainable by the petitioner which is described as a Trade Union Registered under the Trade Union Act as the recognition of this Union was not withdrawn. He further submits that on the face of the explanation submitted to the show cause notice it is apparent that the petitioner has violated Rule 4(d); therefore, the 2nd respondent is entitled to cancel the recognition on that ground as the petitioner can have no valid defence for the said violation.