ISRO DRIVERS ASSOCIATION Vs. GOVT OF INDIA
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
ISRO DRIVERS ASSOCIATION
GOVT OF INDIA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)AGGRIEVED by the order, in W. P. No. 13998 of 1999 dated 09. 10. 2001, the ISRO Drivers Association has preferred this appeal. The writ petition was filed by them to declare the action of the respondents in not treating their association as eligible to participate in the verification process for according recognition under the Central Civil Services (Recognition of Service Association) Rules, 1993 (hereinafter called the "1993 Rutes"), as illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential direction to the respondents to permit their association to participate in the verification process for recognition under the said Rules. For convenience sake, parties shall, hereinafter, be referred to as they are arrayed in the Writ Petition.
(2.)THE 3rd respondent - ISRO is under the control of the Department of Space, Government of India. The 2nd respondent, with the object of having a smooth and conducive machinery for settlement of disputes proposed a joint committee of the management and the staff called the "joint Consultative Machinery (JCM) and compulsory arbitration scheme" which was brought into force in the year 1977. The Sriharikota High Altitude Range (SHAR) originally had two associations namely the petitioner association and the SHAr employees Association which were formed in the years 1970 and 1976 respectively. The petitioner was accorded ad hoc recognition in July 1980 subject to verification as per the norms prescribed under the Central Civil Services (Recognition of Service Association) Rules, 1959. After due verification the petitioner association and SHAR Employees Association were both permitted to nominate their representatives to the JCM. The JCM machinery is provided for at three stages (1) at the national level called the national council (2) at the department level called the departmental council and (3) at the regional level called the regional council. The 4th respondent is a region under the 3rd respondent which, in turn, is under the control of the Department of Space.
Petitioner would contend that, after introduction of the JCM in the 4th respondent, verification for recognition and nomination to the JCM was made in the years 1980, 1983 and 1990 and that in all the three verifications they were accorded recognition and were consequently permitted to have their representatives in the regional and departmental councils. According to the petitioner, there is no difference between the 1959 and 1993 rules except that the percentage of employees in a category, required for recognition, had undergone a change. The Department of Space issued proceedings dated 31. 5. 1999 directing the respective regions to conduct verification. According to the petitioner, in so far as the 4th respondent is concerned, only two associations were named and the petitioner association was eliminated from the zone of consideration for recognition.
(3.)ON a representation by the petitioner on 21. 6. 1999 the 4th respondent, while referring to the letter of the Department of Space dated 30. 5. 1996, rejected their claim. Petitioner would contend that their Association fell well within the ambit of both the 1959 and the 1993 rules, as it had a common interest, consisted of a homogeneous group with only drivers as its members, and their members constituted about 80% of the drivers as against the prescribed 35% under the 1993 rules. They would submit that they had been recognized ever since 1980, were represented in the JCM ever since it was constituted in the year 1990 and were continuing therein for the past 9 years.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.