RAILWAY EMPLOYEE CO-OPERATIVE STAFF UNION REP. BY ITS SECRETARY R.C. CYRIL THIYAGARAJ Vs. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Union being one among the four unions operating under the second respondent, has come forward to file these writ petitions, seeking a direction to the first respondent to determine the relative strength of them through a secret ballot and to direct the third respondent to conduct elections among all the Trade Unions existing in the third respondent society for the purpose of electing representatives of the employees to the Board of Trustees of the second respondent Fund under the supervision of the first respondent.

(2.) The third respondent is the present recognised Union having obtained the said status under the Trade Union Act. This status has been achieved through the check off system. The petitioner Union is stated to be broken away one from the third respondent few years back and now claims to be in majority and therefore seeks the relief. Needless to state that the petitioner Union has not come under the check off system. Incidentally, the term of office of the third respondent qua the recognition under the Trade Union Act comes to an end by the end of this month.

(3.) With the above said backdrop, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No. 166 of 2011 (The Management of Foxconn (India) Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Managing Director Vs. Podhu Thozhilalar Sangam, Kanchipuram and others) dated 31.01.2013, the first respondent is the competent authority to conduct the secret ballot to decide the recognition of the Union concerned. The Division Bench has found that the check off system has lost its appeal. A combined understanding of the Trade Union Act read with Industrial Disputes Act mandates the first respondent to undertake the said exercise. The learned counsel submits that it is a case where the second and third respondents are acting in unison and therefore, it is imperative to allow the writ petition. Incidentally, it is submitted that the prayer sought for in W.P.No. 17101 of 2014 need not be gone into and therefore, the same may be closed. Hence, the writ petition in W.P.No. 17101 of 2014 stands closed.