ROURKELA MAZDOOR SABHA Vs. ROURKELA STEEL PLANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EACH of these petitions filed by rival trade unions arises out of orders passed by the Labour Commissioner, Orissa, in the same verification proceeding. Both the cases relate essentially to the same matter, i. e. recognition of trade unions operating in the Steel Plant at Rourkela. In O. J. C. No. 4426/89 notice was issued which was sufficient on all the opposite parties. During the course of hearing on admission it was directed by order No. 8 dated March 7, 1990 to put up the matter for final disposal. Counter affidavits have also been filed in the case by opposite party Nos. 1 and 16. Opposite party No. 18 in O. J. C. No. 4426/89 is the petitioner in O. J. C. No. 361/90 and the petitioner in O. J. C. No. 4426/89 is opposite party No,4 in O. J. C. No. 361/90. In O. J. C. No. 361/90 notice was also issued to al 1 the opposite parties except opposite party Nos 1, 8 and 17 who had already appeared. The notice issued was sufficient on all parties. In O. J. C. No. 4426/89 the opposite party Nos. 1 and 16 have filed counter affidavit. In O. J. C. No. 361/90 opposite party Nos. 1, 3, 4, 8, 14 and 17 have filed counter affidavit. Both the cases were heard for final disposal with consent of counsels for the parties and they are disposed of by this common judgment. O. J. C. No. 4426/89 was filed by the Rourkela Mazdoor Sabha (for brevity, referred to hereafter as 'the Mazdoor Sabha') seeking quashing of the orders passed by the Labour Commissioner, Orissa dated December 5, 1989, as the State Implementation and Evaluation Officer, authorising the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Rourkela to verify the membership of the registered trade unions named in the order in accordance with the procedure laid down for verification under the Code of Discipline (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') and the order passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Rourkela, opposite party No. 2 in that case on December 12, 1989 calling upon the petitioner to produce the records mentioned therein within ten days of receipt of the notice, for verification of the membership. Both these orders have been annexed to the writ petition as Annexures-4 and 6 respectively. O. J. C. No. 361 /90 was filed by the Rourkela Sramik Sangha (for brevity, referred to hereafter as 'the Sramik Sangha') and its members seeking direction to the Labour Commissioner-cum-Implementation and Evaluation Officer and the Deputy Labour Commissioner, opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 respectively, for completion of the procedure of verification of the unions in the Rourkela Steel Plant; fixing a time limit for grant of recognition and direction to opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 to comply with the same; as also the relief of quashing Annexure-10, the order passed by the Labour Commissioner accepting the plea of the Mazdoor Sabha to allow it time for production of the records and directing the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Rourkela, to issue a third notice to the Mazdoor Sabha in the first week of April, 1990 for production of the records and also to allow opportunity to other unions who had not produced the records in response to the second notice, by issuing a third notice.

(2.) THE gist of the facts in both the cases is that this Court by its judgment dated September 5, 1988 in O. J. C. No. 1484/84 directed the Steel Industry of India Ltd. , to take steps for reconstitution of the Works Committee of the Rourkela Steel Plant and in the event it failed to do so, the Labour Commissioner was to dissolve the Works Committee and take steps forthwith for reconstitution of the same. It is the case of the Sramik Sangha that in the election held for reconstitution of the Works Committee, all the seats for workmen were secured by it. Because of such results it addressed a letter to the Rour-Kela Steel Plant on October 2, 1989 to accord recognition to its union as the sole bargaining agent of the workmen in the Rourkela Steel Plant. Thereafter it addressed a letter, vide An-nexure-5, on October 9, 1989 to the Implementation and Evaluation Officer-cum-Labour Commissioner intimating him of having called upon the Rourkela Steel Plant to recognise it as the sole bargaining agent as per the Code but that the Steel Plant had not replied and that for such reason the Labour Commissioner should pass orders for immediate verification of the membership of all the trade unions operating in the Rourkela Steel Plant and recommend the majority one for being accorded recognition. On receipt of such request from the Sramik Sangha, the Labour Commissioner, as the Implementation and Evaluation Officer, authorised on December 5, 1989 the Deputy Labour Commissioner to carry out the verification process of membership of the registered trade unions under the Code and in pursuance of the same, the Deputy Labour Commissioner passed order on December 14, 1989 calling upon the different trade unions including the Sramik Sangha and the Mazdoor Sabha to produce the necessary records within ten days of receipt of the notice. As has been noted earlier, such orders passed by the Labour Commissioner and the Deputy Labour Commissioner are impugned in O. J. C. No. 4426/89. In that case, the Mazdoor Sabha also moved a petition registered as Misc. Case No. 5929/89 for stay of Annexure-6, the order of the Deputy Labour Commissioner dated December 14, 1989, but this Court by order dated December 22, 1989, while declining to grant stay observed that in view of the practical difficulty on the part of the petitioner to produce the records the Court was sure that if the petitioner approached the appropriate authority its grievance would be duly looked into. In the meantime, the opposite party No. 2 issued a second and final notice on January 5, 1990 to the respective trade unions to produce the records for the purpose of verification. A copy of the notice issued to the Sramik Sangha has been annexed as Annexure-7/a to O. J. C. No. 361/90. The Mazdoor Sabha in the meantime approached Labour Commissioner, opposite party No. 1, for extension of time to it for production of the records before him. The Labour Commissioner, on consideration of the request of the Mazdoor Sabha, considered the grant of extension of time to it and other unions who had not been able to produce the records in pursuance of the first and second notices issued by the Deputy Labour Commissioner to be reasonable, and directed him to issue a third notice to the Mazdoor Sabha in the first week of April as also to grant the same opportunity to the other unions for production of records. In passing the order the Labour Commissioner also stated that issue of a third notice was permissible as per the clarification contained in the Government of India, Ministry of Labour dated May 23, 1980. The order of the Commissioner has been annexed to O. J. C. No. 361 of 1990 as Annexure-10 and is impugned therein. The order of the Central Government to which reference was made by the Labour Commissioner in Annexure-10 has been annexed as Annexure-2 to O. J. C No. 4426/89 and contains the view of the Government communicated to the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Orissa, Labour, Employment and Housing Department, that if any union fails to produce its records even after receipt of the notice on the second occasion, no effort should be made to verify its membership and the process should be confined only to such unions who cooperate with the verification machinery, but that if there were any genuine difficulties for any union to produce its records even after more than two chances, more chances may be given for the purpose depending upon the merits of each case.

(3.) IT is the submission of the Mazdoor Sabha in O. J. C. No. 4426/89 that the Code under which the verification of the membership of the different trade unions for the purpose of recommendation is made is wholly defective, realising which different State Government have enacted specific legislations in the matter and that even the Government of India has in the circular of May 23, 1980 itself suggested that the verification machinery may resort to a system of secret ballot provided all the contending unions and the concerned management agree for adoption of such a system. It is also further maintained by the Mazdoor Sabha that the very application of the Sramik Sangha to the Implementation and Evaluation Officer-cum-Labour Commissioner for the purpose of verification of membership of different trade unions was misconceived since no such application could be filed before the Labour Commissioner. Filing of such application before the Labour Commissioner was not contemplated under the very Code on the basis of which the verification was sought for, and that the Labour Commissioner had no power to proceed with or direct the verification on the basis of such a letter of the Sramik Sangha. On such premises it is contended that the entire verification process commenced at the instance of the Sramik Sangha under the orders of the Labour Commissioner is liable to be quashed.