MADRAS FERTILIZERS AMBEDKAR EMPLOYEES UNION Vs. CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR MADRAS FERTILIZERS LIMITED MANALI CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER seeks issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records relating to the proceedings No. 3/98 p. &a. Bulletin, dated 12. 1. 1998, and quash the same as ultra vires, arbitrary, unreasonable, against the constitutional rights and guarantees and the rules and regulations and norms laid down in regulating the Trade Unions in maintaining the peaceful Industrial atmosphere and thereby direct the respondent/management to recognise the petitioner-Union in accordance with rules and procedure with all permissible privileges, immunities and rights of trade Union.

(2.) IN the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition it is stated that the petitioner is the General Secretary of the petitioner-Union, which is a registered trade union under the provisions of trade Unions Act, 1926. It is said that Madras Fertilizers Limited (in short 'mfl') is functioning at Manali for about 30 years, and its commercial production started in 1971. There was only one Union viz. , the Madras fertilizers Staff Union (R-3 herein) without any political affiliation. From 1982, another union by name Madras Fertilizer National Employees Union affiliated to the INTUC started functioning. Both the unions are duly recognised by the Management. It is said that the petitioner-Union is started on 26. 8. 1997, consisting of 240 members, with an aim and object to effectively and efficiently establish and promote by every means to secure and protect the constitutional rights of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe employees with a view to furthering mutual understanding and goodwill and to protect the interest of SC/st employees. It is said that the necessity to organise such a Unio n arose, as both the recognised unions started behaving differently towards a section of workers based upon caste and communal considerations. When the management wanted to implement the rules of reservation, the other Unions raised the banner of opposition in an uncertain terms as they wrongly felt that by implementation of the reservation policy, the interest of their members would be affected. It is also the case of the petitioner that they wrote to the respondent/management requesting them to accord recognition to petitioner-Union as has been the case of the other two unions and for equal treatment guaranteed under Arts. 14 and 19 (1) (c) of the Constitution. The further contention is that the Management started moving towards a wrong direction as if groping in dark by taking recourse to the weapon of election for the first time in the thirty years'history of the company. The petitioner-Union again wrote to the management on 22. 10. 1997, explaining them that they have to form Union as a last resort, and also assured the Management of their co-operation in allowing the wheels of production to run smoothly without hampering production at any cost. They also wrote to the Minister for Chemicals and Fertilizers. By a letter dated 3. 12. 1997, they requested the Management to have a formal meeting for introducing the office bearers to the Management, but there was no reply. Immediately after the receipt of the letter dated 3. 12. 1997, the Management started moving swiftly and issued a letter to INTUC Union on 15. 12. 1997, suggesting to test the majority strength of the Union for the purpose of conducting negotiation bilaterally. They also proposed to conduct election through secret ballot to ascertain the membership of the Union. This attempt of the Management is not correct according to the petitioner. It is said that the letter of the Management dated 15. 2. 1997 and the bulletin dated 12. 1. 1998 are not legal and the same are issued without jurisdiction. From the letter, it is clear that the intention of the Management was that they wanted only one union and the test is 51% of the total work force. It is also said that even though the bulletin is dated 12. 1. 1998, the same is displayed on the notice board on the evening of 13. 1. 1998, fixing the time for filing of nomination as 3. 00 p. M. , on 15. 1. 1998, knowing fully well that 14. 1. 1998 was a holiday for Pongal. It is also said that in every election, the Returning Officer will be an officer of the Labour Department, whereas in this case a Deputy General Manager has been appointed as the Returning Officer. It is said that in the first letter it is 15% of the total workmen in the organization whereas in the second letter it is 15% of the total valid votes polled, which is contradictory, and therefore, it is invalid. It is said that the whole exercise of the Management is an attempt in futility with an ulterior motive and evil design not to recognise the petitioner-Union and at the same time recognise the Union, which goes according to their wishes. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has come to this Court for the reliefs stated above.

(3.) PURSUANT to the interim orders of this Court, the election was conducted, but the result is not published. Now that I hold that the writ petition is without any merit, I direct the respondent/management to publish the result of the election forthwith. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently the connected W. M. Ps. , are closed. W. P. Dismissed. .