Disposed

Defmetlab Workers National Union v. The Union of India

Telangana HC3 Jun 2024WP/995/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of this writ petition challenging a secret ballot for union recognition where the Petitioner Union was included against an alleged undertaking. Relying on counter-affidavits stating no verification would occur for the Petitioner, the petition was dismissed without costs.

What did the court decide?

Claim for a fresh recognition process without the Petitioner's union name was not granted; petition disposed of.

Defmetlab Workers National Union Vs The Union of… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

132521

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

IMONDAY. THE THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶6

WRIT PETITI ON NO: 995 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

DEFMETLAB workers Nationar Union, c/o Defence Metailurgicar Research Laboratory (DNIRL), Kanchanbagh, Hydeiabal R;p ;y rt, preiia.it-sr,ri Erilntn Goud, S/o Ganapathy.

¶9

.....PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The Union of lndia, Represe_nted by its Secretary To Ministry of Defense. South Block New Delhi - 1 1001 1

¶12

2 }t^{Oetengg-14ela-lturgicalResearch Laboratory (DMRL)} Kanchan Bagh, Hyderabad 500058, Ripresented Oy iti bireiioi '-^{'" "}

¶13

3 The Defence Research and Development Organisation, Directorate of Manag^ement _services, DRDO Bhawan naiaji Artarg, New Dethi _t iObt t nep by its Deputy Director.

¶14

4 P[lL_1:l*',tp^{Sang!,BearrngRefJllo_i9.14, C/o DMRL Kanchanbagh,} Bandlaguda Mandal, Ranga Reddy District Rep by its Secretary

¶15

5 The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), ATI Campus. Opp. Shivam Temple. Vidyanagar. Hyderabad .'

¶16

...,.RESPONOENTS

¶17

Petition Under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an order, direction particurarry one in the nature of writ of mandamus for declaring the action of the Respondent No 2 conducting the recognition process of the Respondent No.4 including the petitioner unions name contrary to the procedure and also against the undertaking given before the Respondent No.5 Authority as illegal, arbitrary and unjust consequenily direct the

¶18

/ Respondent No.2 to conduct a fresh recognition process without incruding the Petitioners un ion name.

¶19

l.A.NO:1 OF 2023

¶20

Petition Under section 1s1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the Respondent No.2 to stay al.further proceedings incruding recognition of Respondent No.4 union_

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI B.SHIVA KUMAR

¶22

C_o_ursel for the Respondent No.s 1, 2, 3 & 5 : SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR (DEpUTy soLtctToR GENERAL OF tNDtA)

¶23

Counsel forthe Respondent No. 4: SRI A. SURYANARAYANA

¶24

The Court made the following ORDER

¶25

¶26

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶27

WRIT P TITION No.99 5 0F 2023

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

Heard Iearned counsel Sri B. Shiva Kumar, appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, appearing on behalf of the Respondents 1 to 3 & 5 and Sri A.Suryanarayana, learned counse! appearing on behalf of the respondent No,4.

¶30

The oetitioner aooroached the Court seekino Draver as under:

¶31

"declaring the action of the Respondent No. 2 conducting the recognition process of the Respondent No. 4 including the petitioner union,s name contrary to the procedure and also against the undertaking given betore the Respondent No.5 Authority as illegal, arbitrary and unjust, consequently direct the Respondent No.2 to conduct a fresh recognition process without including the Petitioner's union name".

¶32

PERUSED THE RECORD :

¶33

The counter affidavit filed on behalf of resoo ndent os.1 an n a r f s. 1 t7 1B 3 24 and 25, read as under:

¶34

¶35

¶36

"16. In this connection, it is submitted that the allegation made by the Petitioner is absolutely wrong because the Secret Ballot is conducted from the list of all eligible Workmen and there is every possibility that some of the Workmen who are the members of^,DEFMETLAB Workers National Union' may utilize their franchise and cast their vote in favour of 'DMRL Karmika Sangh Union' also if DEFMETLAB Workers National Union' name and logo is not there in the ballot paper. The procedure adopted by the Office of the Respondent No.2 is valid and just and not highly illegal and arbitrary as alleged by the petitioner in this paragraph.

¶37

L7. \n reply to para No. (6) it is submitted that the representative of the Office of the Respondent No.2 has stated that the election orocess is ontv for the 'DMRL rmik an h' a sce wh he m 15^o ofm mbershio trenqth of Workmen and the D cess of Secret Ballot will not affect the existino recoonized Petitioner's Union i,e.^,DEFMETLAB Workers National Union'.

¶38

It is submitted that when there is a recognized Union already existing in the Office of Respondent No.2 and another Registered Union is seeking the recognition from the Competent Authority, Secret Ballot system is followed, in the absence of Check-ofF system. In the Ballot oaoer, the name (s) all Unions recoqnized / unrecoonized sho ldbeo rinted to avoid duaI membe rship. It does not mean thatth e Office of Responde ntN o.2 would

¶39

¶40

like to determine the relative strenqth o'l at]y U!!io!1 oarticioated in the Secret Ballot election as alleoed bv the Petitioner. This exercise has been made to avoid dual membership and the^procedure adopted is valid and iust but it is not ill eoal and arbitrarv as alleqed bv the Petitioner in this^parlrqraph.

¶41

In reply to para No. (11) it is submitted that the Petitioner states that there is no objection from their side for recognition of 'DMRL Karmika Sangh', Respondent No.4 Union yet they raise some objection or the other in the process of Secret Ballot election for verification of membership of 'DMRL Karmika Sangh Union'. The Petitioner knows verv w il that the Sec retB a llot election conducted bv Respondent No.2 for recoonition of Resoondent No.4 does not harm them in anv wav and the Petitioner's Union would continue to function with the recoonition alreadv^qranted to them and there will be no verification of membership in their resoect for the^present.

¶42

It is submitted that unless the names and symbols of all Unions existed in the Office of Respondent No.2 are shown in the ballot paper, the method of secret ballot election process will not be proper to ascertain the mandatory requirement whether the Union, seeking recognition, meets the criteria of 15% membership from the total strength of eligible Workmen in the OFfice of Respondent No. 2. The above said procedure is very much essential in the secret baliot election to avoid dual

¶43

¶44

membership from the eligible Workmen otherwise the Management i.e. Respondent No.2 will be subject to face different types of problems from different angles.

¶45

In view of the facts and circumstances as stated above, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare that the action taken by Respondent No.2 is quite just and proper. Further, th Petitione r herein does notde rve anv relief souo ht for tn heWrit eti ER s o n 1 3 rt il d e (: ball d ex ine above, For the reasons stated above, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the present Writ Petition with costs and pass such order or other orders as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.,,

¶46

4 e th P ton r tn rief th r n a tn ea VI ed th eri u of e r sen rit iti n sa d a) The Petitioner union is a registered trade union bearing No. 32t9/t968 registered under Trade Union Act 1926 and recognised by the Government of Indla, Ministry of Defense vide Letter No. pC 94188/A/RD-30/13966_71/D (Lab) dated 29.71..t977. The petitioner Union is also recognized all over India including 2nd respondent unit.

¶47

¶48

¶49

b) The Ministry of Defence issued^{guidelines from time to} time and on 03.03.1997 revised^{procedure for recognitionof} Union of workers employed in^Ministry of^{Defence installations} was issued. The 4th Respondent is^{registered union and the4th} respondent gave application for^{recognition of their union,and} thereFore, the 2nd Respondent to^{grant recognition to DMRL} Karmika Sangh initiated^process for^{recognition of4th} Respondent union and the Management in^{the processof} recognition of Respondent No.4 through^{secret ballot} verification, included the name of the^{Petitioner unionand logo} vide proceeding dated 07.12.2022 to conduct a^secretballot election, aggrieved by the same the^{Petitioner unionapproached} the 5th Respondent stating that, by raising the dispute^{on the} ground that the management agreed before the 5th Respondent that the Petitioner union name will not be included in recognition^process, contrary to that^petitioner name^was included in^process of recognition dated 21.12.2022, which^is highly illegal arbitrary and unjust.

¶50

c) The Respondent Management agreed before Regional commission central that the^petitioner union is not necessary for recognition process of 2nd Respondent and contrary to the said undertaking before the 5tt'Respondent and even before results

¶51

¶52

were declared, 4th Respondent stated that^{they got majority} votes and defeated Petitioner union. In^{fact votingwas} conducted for recognition of 2nd Respondent^{union and not for} determining the majority of^{the union.}

¶53

d) Furthermore, in the^year 2016^{Petitionerunion filed Writ} Petition No. 28355 of 2016 challenging^{several irregularitiesand} the same was dismissed for default,^{subsequentlyrestoration} petition was filed and same is^pending before the^{High Court.} Also, the Petitioner union has^{nothing to do with recognition} process of 4th Respondent, the^grievance of^{the Petitionerunion} is that the management is showing^{unfair treatment to the} petitioner union.

¶54

e) At the outset, 2nd^{Respondent isencouraging4th} Respondent union to demoralize^{petitioner's union and even} before the results were declared,^{4th Respondent has given paper} publication stating that petitioner union^{lost the elections.} Moreover, the^petitioner union^{is not objectingfor recognition of} 4th Respondent union but objecting^{for declaration of election} result without conducting the elections.^{Aggrieved by the} process of recognition proceedings dated 21.O12.2022,^the present writ petition is filed.

¶55

¶56

I I

¶57

DIS CUSSION^{ANDCONCLUS ION :}

¶58

The main^{grievance of the Petitioner is that the 2nd} Respondent^{conducted therecognition process of} Respondent^{No.4 includingthe Petitioner Union's name} contrary to^{theprocedure and alsoagainst the} undertaking^{given before the 5th Respondent Authority} and to consequently^{direct the RespondentNo'2 to} conduct a^{fresh recognitionprocess without including} Petitioner Union^name.

¶59

6 The orievance of the^{Petitioneras Dut-forth in the} Dre ent w r Detiti has in fact been ans^{wered at Para} Nos. 17, 18 and^{23 of the counter affidavitfiled on behalf} ofr esoo nd ent Nos. 1 to 3(referred to^{and extracted} above),

¶60

A bare^perusal of the averments^{made in the counter} affidavit filed^{on behalfof Respondents No.1 to 3 clearly} indicate that there^{will be noverification ofthe} membership of^{Petitioner'sUnionfor the present and that} the^process of^{secret ballot will not effect the existing} recognized Petitioner's^{Union i.e.,'DEFMETLABWORKERS} NATIONAL UNION"^{C/o. DMRL,Kanchanbagh,Hyderabad'}

¶61

¶62

B Taking into consideration the averments made in the counter affidavit at para Nos. 16, lZ, Lgt 23t 24 and 25 (referred to and extracted above), this Court opines that Respondent Nos.1 to 3 conducted the secret ballot for ascertaining the mandatory requirement whether Respondent No.4 seeking recognition, meets the criteria of l5o/o membership from the strength of eligible workmen in the Office of Respondent No.2 only.

¶63

Takino tn co n siderat ion he fore sa id facts and circums ta nces of the case and the averm ents made in the co unter affidav t fit donbehalf ofRespon den Nos .1 to 3 ( referred to and extracted above ). this Cou rt oD ines that es d tN s to r oll ed he ro du as a at u d r h r es n fu her ta tn to on er tio th cl a ts on a o 3of h un r affid it led n half of s de N 1t 3 at e ecr t llo rele ton n ct b R on nt N 2t c n! on R o den o d s oth m P iti er tn n d EP itio n e r' Uni nw td on ue o fun wt th re nt n lre ant to e e d f rth r a her lt n

¶64

¶65

¶66

verification of membershio in respect of the Petitioner for the^present and brinqino the said averments in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 3 on record, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶67

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ

¶68

¶69

Petition, shall stand closed.

¶70

SDI- K.SREERAMA MURTY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR IITRUE COPY// V

¶71

ohe fair copy to the HoN'BLE MRs JUSTIcE suREPiEL?LloNoFFlcER (For His Lordship's Kind Perusal)

¶72

¶73

't. The Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Defense, South Block New Delhi - 110011

¶74

1. The Director, Defence Metallurgical Research Labouratoiy (DIVIRL), Kanchan Bagh, Hyderabad 500058.

¶75

J. The Deputy Dir'ector, Defence Research and Development Organisation, Directorate of Management Services, DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi -'1 1001 1 .

¶76

1. The Secretary, DMRL Karmika Sangh, Bearing Ref No. 1914, C/o DIVIRL Kanchanbagh, Bandlaguda Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶77

1. The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), ATI Campus, Opp. Shivam Temple, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad.

¶78

6 1 1 t-.R. Copies.

¶79

7 The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi.

¶80

B, The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶81

1. One CC to SRI B.SHIVA KUMAR, Advocate IOPUCI

¶82

10 One CC to SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUIVIAR^(DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENER,qL OF INDIA) Advbcate [OPUC]

¶83

11 Two CD Copies

¶84

SA LS

HIGH COURT

DATED:0310612024

ORDER

WF.No.995 of 2023

I
1HE S14
R
o;
oc 14 0[r zul
o
<br>Op
'" Drr ct'rco.

¶92

DISPOSING OF THE W.P

¶93

WITFIOUT COSTS.

¶94

iD b1lrf
kL

Defmetlab Workers National Union v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Defmetlab Workers National Union v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. P. Ratna Priya Vs The Telangana State Southerb Power Distribution Company Limited

Kunj a Ramakrishna Vs The State of Telangana

Sankineni Ravinder Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Sooraram Pratap Reddy, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

M/S. Radhika Logistics Vs The Union of India and 2 Others

M/s. a. a Avocations Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Telangana