Disposed

Cochin Port Employees Sangh v. Govt.of India and Others

Kerala HC16 Jun 2010WP(C)/1853/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court closed a writ petition challenging the deduction of union subscription fees. The court accepted the petitioner's prayer to close the petition based on the Trust's stated decision to implement a secret ballot system and cited a prior Division Bench judgment limiting judicial intervention in selecting personnel selection systems.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition closed by recording the third respondent's statement regarding the implementation of the secret ballot system.

Cochin Port Employees Sangh Vs Govt.of India and Others — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2010 / 26TH JYAISTHA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 1853 of 2010(F) -------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

¶8

COCHIN PORT EMPLOYEES SANGH, WILLINGDON ISLAND, KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP SRI.S.MANU

¶10

RESPONDENT(S): ---------------

¶11

UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF SHIPPING, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI.

¶12

INDIAN PORTS ASSOCIATION REPRESENTED BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER NO.19, INSTITUTIONAL AREA, LODI ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110 003.

¶13

COCHIN PORT TRUST REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, WILLINGDON ISLAND, KOCHI.

¶14

ADDL.R4 COCHIN PORT & DOCK EMPLOYEES UNION(AITUC), REPRESENTED BY M.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O.KUNJU NAIR, GENERAL SECRETARY, COCHIN PORT & DOCK EMPLOYEES UNION(AITUC) (IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R4 AS PER ORDER DATED 26-05-2010 IN IA.NO.2603/2010)

¶15

ADDL.R5 COCHIN HARBOUR WORKERS UNION, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, WILLINGTON ISLAND, KOCHI (IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R5 AS PER ORDER DATED 16-06-2010 IN IA.NO.2243/2010)

¶16

ADDL.R6 COCHIN PORT EMPLOYEES ORGANISATION REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, WILLINGTON ISLAND, KOCHI-9

¶17

ADDL.R7 COCHIN PORT THOZHILALI UNION REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY WILLINGTON ISLAND, KOCHI-3.

¶18

ADDL.R8 COCHIN PORT STAFF ASSOCIATION REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY WILLINGTON ISLAND, KOCHI-9

¶19

ADDL.R9 COCHIN THURAMUKHA THOZHILALI UNION REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, WILLINGTON ISLAND, KOCHI-3 (IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R6, ADDL.R7, ADDL.R8 AND ADDL.R9 RESPECTIVELY AS PER ORDER DATED 16-06-2010 IN IA.NO.1062/2010)

¶20

BY ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI FOR R1 SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R3 SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR FOR R3 SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI FOR R3 SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS FOR R3 SRI.P.GOPINATH FOR R3 SRI.V.J.ANAND FOR R3 SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN FOR ADDL.R4 SRI.S.SREEKUMAR FOR ADDL.R4, R8 SRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH FOR ADDL.R5 SRI.T.D.SALIM FOR ADDL.RES. SRI.C.S.YESUDAS FOR ADDL.RES. SRI.PAUL C THOMAS FOR ADDL.RES. SMT.AYSHA YOUSEFF FOR ADDL.R 4 SMT.MOLLY JACOB FOR ADDL.R 4 SMT.U.M.FOUSIA FOR ADDL.R 4 SMT.RABIA BEEGAM T.K. FOR ADDL.R 4 SMT.M.KABANI DINESH FOR ADDL.R 4 SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R2

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD

¶22

ON 16/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J.

¶24

W.P.(C) No. 1853 of 2010 F

¶25

Dated this the 16^th day of June, 2010

¶26

J U D G M E N T

¶27

The Cochin Port Trust Employees Sangh, the petitioner, filed this writ petition mainly challenging Ext.P4. The further prayer in this writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the first respondent not to deduct union subscription from the salary of the employees. Ext.P4 is the copy of a Circular dated 07-09-2009. As per the same, the Secretary of the Cochin Port Trust issued a direction for deducting the subscription towards union membership from the salary of employees in January 2010.

¶28

In this writ petition, a statement has been filed by the third respondent. Paragraph 5 of the said statement reads thus:-

¶29

“ It is submitted that as the Government of India has now taken a decision as evidenced by Ext.P2 directing implementation of secret ballot system, and as the Port management and all the unions except CPSA are in favour of the said system, this respondent has no option but to implement the secret ballot system.”

¶30

WPC.1853/2010

¶31

: 2 :

¶32

In the light of the statement filed by the third

¶33

respondent on the above lines, the petitioner submits that this writ petition can be closed by recording the above extracted portion from the said statement. According to the petitioner, the grievance of the Union would be redressed in case the third respondent implements the said decision. It is in the said circumstances that the petitioner prays for closing this writ petition. It is to be noted that all of the aforementioned Unions, except CPSA, the 8^th respondent, have also expressed their willingness rather their acceptance to follow the secret ballot system. The 8^th respondent Union, namely, the CPSA, filed a counter affidavit in this writ petition. According to them, the check off system has to be followed in the light of Ext.P4 and the said system has been in force in the Cochin Port Trust since 1998. That apart, they contended that the Central Government has not so far taken any policy decision as stated by the third respondent. They have yet another contention that even the third respondent did not take any decision to follow the secret ballot system. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent refuted the same and submitted

¶34

WPC.1853/2010

¶35

: 3 :

¶36

that the third respondent had already taken such a decision to follow the secret ballot system in tune with the policy decision of the Central Government.

¶37

In Ext.P1 judgment, a Division Bench of this Court held

¶38

as follows:-

¶39

“ We are of the view it is entirely for the Government of India and the Port Trust to accept a system which is suitable to them and this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not justified in expressing opinion about a particular system. Under such circumstance without finally pronouncing upon the desirability to follow any system we are inclined to dispose of the writ appeal and the writ petition. We are of the view learned Single Judge is not justified in directing the Port Trust to follow secret ballot system. Judgment is accordingly set aside. Writ appeal is allowed. We leave it to the concerned parties to adopt the system which is suitable for the best interest of the Port Trust.”

¶40

It is thus evident from Ext.P1 judgment that it is not for

¶41

WPC.1853/2010

¶42

: 4 :

¶43

this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to suggest the system to be followed in the Cochin Port Trust whilst it is entirely for the Government of India and the Port Trust to accept the suitable system.

¶44

In these circumstances, I do not propose to go into the merits of this writ petition taking into account the aforementioned developments and the submission on the part of the petitioner and also the stand taken by the third respondent and the respondent Unions except the 8^th respondent. The present prayer of the petitioner is only to close this writ petition by recording the above extracted portion from the statement made by the third respondent and such a course is acceptable to all the other Unions except the 8^th respondent Union. In the light of Ext.P1 judgment, I am of the considered view that the objection on the part of the 8^th respondent cannot stand in the way of closing this writ petition based on the aforesaid submission made by the petitioner. Accordingly, this writ petition is closed recording the above extracted statement in paragraph 2 above from the statement dated 15-02-2010 filed by the third respondent,

¶45

WPC.1853/2010

¶46

: 5 :

¶47

suggesting its decision to implement the secret ballot system in

¶48

the Cochin Port Trust.

¶49

(C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)

¶50

aks

Cochin Port Employees Sangh v. Govt.of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Cochin Port Employees Sangh v. Govt.of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lintu P.Panakkal Vs the Manager, M.J.D.High School

Meera.a Vs the Deputy Director of Education

V.T.Vasudevan Vs the State of Kerala and Others

Sujitha.S Vs Director of Higher Secondary Education

Beena Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Sreedevi M.S. Vs State of Kerala