UNION OF INDIA Vs. RAJASTHAN ANUSHAKATI PARIYOJNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these appeals arise out of a common judgment dated September 24, 1976 passed by the learned Single Judge by which he dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellant. D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 85 of 1976 arises out of a writ petition No. 61 of 1975 and D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 86 of 1976 arises out of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 51 of 1975.

(2.) THE facts in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 51 of 1975 out of which D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 86 of 1976 has arises are these.

(3.) D .B. Civil Special Appeal No. 85 of 1976 arises out of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 61 of 1975. The Rajasthan Anu Shakati Pariyojana Karamchari Sangh is a recognised registered trade union functioning at Rajasthan Atomic Power Project' Rawat Bhata. It will here in after be referred to as 'the Sangh'. It submitted an application on June 26, 1974 for declaring some of its workmen whose names are mentioned in the application as 'protected men' in terms of Rule 61 of the Rules read with Section 33(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act (No. XIV) of 1947, which will for the sake of brevity here in after be referred to as 'the Act'. This application was rejected by the Chief Project Officer ('the Officer') by his letter Anx. 2 dated July 11, 1974. The ground for rejection was that the Sangh failed to submit the list of the workmen before April 30, 1974 for being declared as 'protected workmen'. The Sangh raised a dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Kota (non -petitioner -respondent No. 2). 'The Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Kota (non -petitioner -respondent No. 2) issued a direction to the petitioner -appellant to give recognition to 12 to 13 members of the Sangh as 'protected workmen'. Against that the writ petition was filed on the ground that Rule 61(1) of the Rules is mandatory. No return was filed to the writ petition by the Sangh. However, in reply to the stay application it was contended that the provisions of Rule 61 in so far as it provided that before 30th April every year the names should be communicated is directory only, and that the petitioner -appellant itself has been recognising the workmen of the Sangh as 'protected workmen' on the application, although they were filed after 30th April in, the past i.e. in the years 1971 and 72. It was submitted that the rule relating to the filing of application communicating the names before 30th April every year should be construed as directory.