AIR CORPORATION EMPLOYEES UNION Vs. G B BHIRADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ in the nature of mandamus against respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 directing them not to proceed with the recognition of the 5th respondent Union, pursuant to the inquiry held by the 1st respondent and the directive contained in the office memo dated 19th December, 1968 issued by the 2nd respondent to the 3rd respondent.

(2.) THE facts of the case are quite simple. The 1st petitioner is a Trade Union which was registered some time in the year 1953-- under the Indian Trade Union Act, 1926, and it claims to have as its members an overwhelming majority of the workmen employed by the 3rd respondent-Corporation as well as by the Indian Airlines which is another Corporation. In para 12 of the petition it is stated that, in May, 1958, the 16th session of the Indian Labour Conference ratified a tripartite machinery evolved by the Government of India, the Employers and the Employees for regulating the relations between the employers and the employees by means of a Code of Discipline which was given effect to and implemented from 1st June, 1968. In paragraph 14 of the petition it is stated that both the 1st petitioner as well as the 3rd respondent accepted that Code of Discipline, and pursuant thereto entered into an agreement dated 6th of June, 1966, whereby recognition was granted to the 1st petitioner Union for a period of two years from that date. At the 22nd session of the Indian Labour Conference which was held in July 1964 the consensus was that recognition of Unions which were categorywise should not be encouraged. In para 16 of the petition, it is stated that the 1st petitioner was surprised to receive a letter dated 30th October, 1968 stating that it was decided to undertake the work of verification of membership of the Unions operating in Air India amongst the aircraft technicians for the purpose of recognition in accordance with the procedure laid down under the Code of Discipline and requesting the 1st petitioner to furnish a list of its members pertaining to all branches, as well as certain other documents referred to therein. It may be mentioned that the 5th respondent--Union had been formed some time in September 1965--and consisted of the technicians employed in 3rd respondent-Corporation as well as in the Indian Airlines Corporation and the said letter dated 30th October, 1968 was written as the 5th respondent--Union had applied for its recognition under the Code of Discipline. The 1st petitioner--Union however, declined to furnish the information which was sought by the said letter, though two opportunities were given for that purpose as stated in para 17 of the affidavit of 1st respondent G. B. Bhirade dated 18th March, 1969 The 1st respondent thereafter proceeded with the inquiry in the absence of the 1st petitioner--Union and ultimately an office memorandum dated 19th December, 1968 was issued by the Ministry of Labour, Employment and Rehabilitation of the Government of India, a copy of which was sent to the General Manager of the 3rd respondent-Corporation. The said office memorandum was in the following terms:--"dated New Delhi, the 19th December, 1968 office Memorandum subject: Recognition of I. A. T. A, the undersigned is directed to refer to the correspondence resting with Shri Tripathi's d. o. No. 45/44/68-I. and E. of December 7, 1968, on the above subject and to say that in Air India the verification of membership of only I. A. T. A. was conducted as the A. C. E. U. failed to produce its records despite two chances. On verification it has been found that the I. A. T. A. had a membership of 682 out of the total strength of 893 amongst the technical categories of staff (viz. Technicians, Senior Technicians, Charge-hands and Inspectors) on the date of reckoning i. e. October 1, 1968. The I. A. T. A. therefore, is entitled to recognition under the Code of Discipline in respect of the aforesaid technical categories. The date from which recognition is granted may kindly be intimated to this Ministry urgently. It may also be pointed out that in the event of such recognition of I. A. T. A. the A. C. E. U. will lose its recognition in respect of the concerned technical staff. "

(3.) IT is the case of the petitioners that the said office memorandum contained a directive to the 3rd respondent. Corporation which was contrary to the principles accepted by the 2nd respondent as well as the employers and employees at the 16th and the 22nd sessions of the Indian Labour Conference, and also contrary to the Code of Discipline evolved at the first of those conferences which was accepted by the said three parties and acted upon by the 1st petitioner-Union. It may, however, be mentioned that, according to the 2nd respondent, the said office memorandum is not in the nature of a directive, and what is stated therein is in conformity with the Code of Discipline evolved at the 16th Session of the Indian Labour Conference the departure from the consensus at the 22nd Session of that conference having been considered advisable for certain reasons stated in para 15 of the affidavit in reply of the 1st respondent.