ISPAT LABOUR UNION STEEL Vs. STATE IMPLEMENTATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ISPAT Labour Union, Rourkela, a registered Trade Union, has filed W.P.(C) No. 2465 of 2003 challenging the notice dated 3.3.2003 in Annexure 4 passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Returning Officer, Rourkela issuing a notice in exercise of powers conferred under Sub rule (2) of Rule 11 of the Verification of Membership and Recognition of Trade Unions Rules, 1994 (hereinafter called as 'the Rules') indicating therein that voting through Secret Ballot for the purpose of verification of membership of trade unions functioning in Rourkela Steel Plant was scheduled to be held on 21.3.2003. The Steel Employees Association, Rourkela, another registered trade

(2.) FOR convenience we have decided to first take up W.P.(C) Nos. 2465 and 6294 of 2003. From the record it appear that by office order dated 5.2.2003 the State Implementation and Evaluation Officer cum Labour Commissioner,' Orissa passed an order to conduct verification of membership of 12 eligible registered trade Unions operating in Rourkela Steel Plant, Rourkela through secret ballot for the purpose of determining the Trade Union, commanding majority following, for the purpose of grant of recognition by the employer. By letter dated 13.2.2003 the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Returning Officer, Rourkela intimated all the 12 Trade Unions functioning in Rourkela Steel Plant to display in the notice board for general information the list of employees with their names and particulars employed in Rourkela Steel Plant as on 5.2.2003 and also invited objections/suggestion, if any, from the Unions to be filed on behalf of the Unions to finalise list of voters. From the notice dated 27.2.2003 it appears that after receipt of objections, eight names were added to the list. After preparation of voter list, the impugned notice dated 3.3.2003 was issued by the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Returning Officer, Rourkela in exercise of powers under Rule 11(2) of the Rules. It also appears that after the said notice was issued most of the Unions suggested deletion of names of 279 workers from the final voter list as they were no more workers in the establishment of the employer. On the basis of such objection/suggestion, another notice was issued by the Asst. Labour Commissioner and Returning Officer on 4.3.2003, intimating that names of 279 employees who are already superannuated, voluntarily retired or otherwise separated shall stand deleted from the final list of eligible workmen to participate in the secret ballot voting. After this notice was issued, W.P.(C) No. 2465 of 2003 was filed and this Court by interim order dated 20.3.2003 directed counting of votes to be held, but restrained publication of the result without leave of the Court.

(3.) SHRI G. Rath, learned counsel appearing for the Rourkela Shramik Sangh and the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Asst. Labour Commissioner cum Returning Officer submitted that final voter list had already been prepared after inviting objection vide notice dated 27.2.2003. Only after preparation of final voter list the impugned notice dated 3.3.2003 was issued. On the request/suggestion of most of the Unions, 279 workers, who had superannuated or voluntarily retired or otherwise separated were deleted from the list by notice dated 4.3.2003. The notice dated 4.3.2003 having been passed pursuant to suggestion given by most of the Unions and the Asst. Labour Commissioner having passed the order to delete those 279 workers from the list of eligible workmen, the points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are only technical and does not affect election in any way. It was also contended by the learned counsel appearing for the State as well as Rourkela Shramik Sangh that when the result of the election is not materially affected by any change made in the voter list, the Court should not take cognizance of the same as no prejudice is caused to any party and merely on technical ground, the Court should refrain from interfering with the election. It was also contended by Sri G. Rath that Rourkela Shramik Sangh got majority number of votes whereas all other Unions combined together have got less votes than the Rourkela Shramik Sangh. None of the counsel appearing for the parties disputed this position. So far as compliance of Rule 12 is concerned, it was contended that elaborate arrangements were made in Rourkela itself for facilitating outside voters to cast their votes and therefore it cannot be said that Rule 12 had not been complied with.