- (1.) THE Writ Petition is filed by the Central Organisation of Tamil Nadu Electricity Employees (COTEE) affiliated to CITU. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner union challenged the validity of the Board Proceedings in (Permanent) B.P.(CH) No.77 (Secretariat Branch) dated 28th March 2007 along with the Board proceedings in (Permanent) B.P (Ch) No.111 (Secretariat Branch) dated 9th May 2007. By these two proceedings, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board decided as a matter of principle to deduct yearly subscription from willing employees of various unions and associations if they make a specific request to the Board and the deduction should start from May 2007 to June 2007. It was also indicated that the willing employees should give written authorization to the Pay Drawing Officer concerned and in such an event, the detailed terms and conditions in this regard will be issued by the Board.
(2.) THE contention raised by the petitioner trade union as reflected in their representation sent to the Board dated 7.5.2007 was that the Board should not act on the basis of the requests made by their two trade unions and there must be negotiable settlement on this issue and the settlement should reach from the recognized and certainly affiliated unions and until such time, no deduction should be made by the Board. The Writ Petition was admitted on 29.5.2007. Pending the Writ Petition, in the application for interim stay, only Notice was issued. On notice from this Court, the 2nd respondent trade union affiliated to the Labour Progressive Front (LPF) had filed a counter affidavit dated 30.6.2007. The 1st respondent Board has also filed a counter affidavit dated 10.7.2008. It was stated by the Board that detailed discussions were held with the Unions and only after examining the pros and cons of the issue, the Board Proceedings came to be issued. This is similar to the facilities available in other Public Sector Enterprise like Transport Corporation. It was also stated that if the petitioner union is so willing, they can always the said facility. This concession was issued only as a facility on the request made by the trade unions. It was further stated that the recovery for union subscription or deduction from the salary of the members will be made only on their willingness. The issue raised in this Writ Petition is no longer res integra. A Division Bench of this Court vide the judgment in State Bank Staff Union, State Bank of India Officer's Association vs. State Bank of India, Union of India, etc., reported in 1989(1) LLJ 554 upheld the similar scheme extended by the Central Government. In paragraph No.26, it was observed as follows: "(26.) We are also inclined to accept the argument advanced by Mr.D.Murugesan and Mr.Chandu that Section 7(2)(kkk) of the Payment of Wages Act supports the case of the respondents that the check-off facility should not be restricted to the members of the recognized unions alone. Section 7(2)(kkk) of the said Act reads as follows:- (7.) Deductions which may be made from wages:- (1) xxx (2) Deductions from the wages of an employed person shall shall be made only in accordance with the provisions of this Act, and may be of the following kinds, namely: (a) to (kk) xxx xxx (kkk) deductions made, with the written authorization of the employed person, for payment of the fees payable by him for the membership of any trade union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926." The format to be given by each individual employee (also extracted above) is in conformity with the above provisions in the Payment of Wages Act. Therefore, if really the option is left to the individual employee, the question of extending the facility to the unions, recognized or not, pales into significance. Viewed from this angle, in our view, the petitioners have no case at all to seek the relief of mandamus or certiorari, especially when they could not rest their case on any statutory provision. We are not impressed with the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners that by extending the facility to all Unions, the Bank Managements commit unfair labour practice within the meaning of clause 2(b) of Schedule V of the Industrial Disputes Act. We are also not impressed by the argument that by extending the facility to registered unions, the exclusive right enjoyed by the recognized unions has been taken away arbitrarily. This argument is based on a misconception about the right of check-off facility. As noticed earlier, this facility can be given effect to if only the concerned individual employee seeks the same voluntarily. This basic factor has not been borne in mind by the petitioners in understanding the system of check-off facility."
(3.) THE very same question came to be raised by another trade union in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Engineer's Sangam rep.by its Secretary, Madurai Region vs. the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board in W.P(MD) No.4825 of 2007 dated 12.6.2007. This Court after referring to the earlier Division Bench judgment in the last two paragraphs held as follows: "(6.).... On the basis of the above discussion, we hold that the decision to extend the check-off facility to all registered unions does not suffer from any infirmity requiring to be corrected by Proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. (7.) In view of the above circumstances, there is no substance in this Writ Petition and hence, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected M.Ps., are also dismissed." In the light of the same, there is no case made out. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.;