Dismissed

Agi Glass Factory (Contract Workers Union) v. State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary

Telangana HC20 Aug 2015WP/15780/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge held that a writ petition seeking enforcement of the Trade Union provisions of the non-statutory Code of Discipline is not maintainable under Article 226, following a precedent. The petition was dismissed with remedies left open.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is dismissed and it is left open to the petitioners to work out their remedies as available in law.

Agi Glass Factory (Contract Workers Union) Vs State… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.15780 of 2015

¶3

DATED : 20.08.2015

¶4

Between :

¶5

AGI Glass Factory (Contract Workers Union), Regd.No.A-39/2011 (INTUC), Thokkapur Village, Bhongir Mandal, Nalgonda District, rep., by its President Md.Chand Khan S/o.Aziz Khan, Aged 45 yrs, R/o.Bhongir, Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District & others.

¶6

.. Petitioners

¶7

and

¶8

State of Telangana, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, Labour & Employment Department at Secretariat, Hyderabad & others.

¶9

.. Respondents

¶10

This court made the following :

¶11

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶12

WRIT PETITION No.15780 of 2015

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The 1^st petitioner is a Trade Union, 2^nd petitioner is the General Secretary, 3^rd petitioner is the working President and 4^th petitioner is a worker of AGI Glass Factory (4^th respondent). It is averred that the petitioner-Union was registered on 09.03.2011 and there are about 950 workers working in the 4^th respondent, out of which more than 80% are members of the petitioner Union, in addition to other union operating in the 4^th respondent factory. The petitioners allege that the respondents have not conducted elections to determine the majority union under Code of Discipline. All this is done to deprive the legitimate demands of majority of the workers and entered into illegal agreement with the other union. Having regard to the conduct of the respondent Management, on 05.01.2015, the petitioner union conducted General Body Meeting attended by 631 workers and in the said meeting, it was unanimously resolved to conduct secret ballot elections to determine the majority status. A representation was submitted to the 3^rd respondent and when the 3^rd respondent did not take any steps, the petitioners submitted a representation dated 04.03.2015 to the 2^nd respondent. The 2^nd respondent vide memo dated 04.04.2015 directed the 3^rd respondent to conduct inspection and send a report. Inspite of the direction issued by the 2^nd respondent, the 3^rd respondent has not conducted secret ballot

¶15

election and all this was done only to favour the 4^th respondent factory. In those circumstances, this writ petition is filed.

¶16

2. When the matter is taken up for admission, learned counsel representing the 4^th respondent as well as learned Assistant Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 3 have raised objection on the maintainability of the writ petition by placing reliance on decision of this Court in W.P.No.31577 of 2014 dated 11.11.2014. Learned counsels contended that the relief sought is for enforcement of the provision of Code of Discipline and code of discipline being a non statutory instrument, the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable, for enforcement of such provision.

¶17

3. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the relief sought by the petitioners is more in the nature of enforcement of the provisions of the Trade Union Act and the respondent authorities are statutorily bound to act, in accordance with the Trade Union Act and ensure properly constituted Trade Union operations, for the welfare of the labourers and therefore, the writ is maintainable.

¶18

4. In W.P.No.31577 of 2014, this Court considered the very same issue. The question for consideration before this Court was whether on the process of determination of a majority Trade Union and according recognition to it, under the Code of Discipline by officials like the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, can a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable?

¶19

5. After detailed consideration, the said question was answered by the learned Single Judge, in Para No.37 which reads as under :

¶20

“For the above reasons, I am of the opinion that since the order dated 08.10.2014 was passed by the 2^nd respondent in his capacity as a returning Officer for the conduct of secret ballot election to determine the majority Trade Union in the 3^rd respondent-Industry under the Code of Discipline is as per the “Procedure for Verification of Membership of Unions for the purpose of recognition under the Code of Discipline”, and since the Code of Discipline is non-statutory, a Writ Petition questioning the same is not maintainable. It is open to

¶21

the aggrieved parties to approach a Civil Court challenging the same.”

¶22

6. All the counsels appearing for respective parties have stated that no appeal is filed and decision has become final.

¶23

7. Having regard to the principle laid down by this Court in the above decision and since the petitioners are also seeking enforcement of the provisions of Code of Discipline, a non-statutory provision, the Writ is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

¶24

8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, it is left open to the petitioners to work out their remedies as available in law. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶25

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand dismissed.

¶26

__________________ P.NAVEEN RAO,J 20^th August, 2015. Rds

Agi Glass Factory (Contract Workers Union) v. State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Agi Glass Factory (Contract Workers Union) v. State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Badugu Arjun Rao, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

G. Raveen Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Vazirani Mohini Haresh, Vs The Hyderabad Water Supply and Sewarage Board

T.Balabhadra Doss, D/o.Late T.Ganeshdass , Ganesh Prasad Vs The State of Telangana

P. Ramdas Chary, Vs The State of Telangana

Smt P.Anuradha, Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation