MOIL KAMGAR SANGHATHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner herein challenging the letters dated 30/01/19 (Annexure P/12 and P/13) and letter dated 31/01/19 (Annexure P/14). This is the second round of litigation between the parties. Initially, the Respondent No.5 had filed a writ petition before this Court inter-alia praying therein that the elections be held through secret ballot for the members of Manganese Ore India Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the MOIL' for the sake of brevity), which is an undertaking of the Government of India. The Petitioner undisputedly is a recognised union having the largest membership of workers of MOIL. The Respondent No.5 filed a writ petitions before this Court being W.P. No.9002/2010 and W.P. No.860/2012. Vide order dated 19.6.2012, both the writ petitions were dismissed. The issues raised in those petitions were for the conduct of election to the Union through secret ballot and the second issue was that the Petitioner herein did not hold elections for more than two years and, therefore, cannot be treated as a recognised Union. While dismissing the writ petitions, this Court held that in the light of the Code of Discipline, which does not provide for secret ballot, the elections cannot be held through secret ballot. As regards the second contention that the instant Petitioner cannot be deemed to be a recognised Union as no verification for membership have been conducted to it even after the passage of two years. The said contention was rejected by this Court as relying upon Clause 12 of the Code of Discipline, which is under the heading of period of recognition and reads as under: -

(2.) The aforesaid provision does not lay down an outer limit of time after which, re-verification of its members is mandatory. The provision only provides that the recognition shall not be cancelled during the period of two years from the date of recognition. It only provides for the cancellation of verification if it is found that the said Union was responsible for the breach of Code of Discipline during the period of two years.

(3.) Against the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the Respondent No.5 herein approached this Court in a Writ Appeal, which upheld the two aforementioned findings of the learned Single Judge. The learned Division Bench took cognizance of the fact that as the process of verification and recognition has not taken place since the last two years. It was also of the opinion that such a situation definitely cannot be said to be in the interest of Industrial or Labour relation. The learned Division Bench also recorded the submission at bar made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Management herein, who was Respondent in the Writ Appeal, that it is not negotiating with any of the Representative Union. Thereafter, the Division Bench disposed of the Writ Appeal directing the Chief Labour Commissioner, Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi and the Regional Labour Commissioner, Central (RLC for short) at Nagpur, to immediately take steps for supervising the process of registration and verification of membership. It also directed the Management that they shall continue the practise of not negotiating with any of the Representative Unions till the exercise of verification and registration of the membership of the union is completed by the Respondents No.2 and 3.