Madras High Court
Dravida Thozhilalar Uzhiyar ... vs The Deputy Chief Labour ... on 10 March, 2021
W.A.No.605 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.03.2021
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
W.A.No.605 of 2021
Dravida Thozhilalar Uzhiyar Sangam
rep. by the General Secretary R.S.Manimaran
No.110, SPT Mani Nagar
Vadakutha, Kurinjipadi
Cuddalore District 607 308. ... Appellant
Vs.
1. The Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central)
No.26, III Block
5th Floor, Shastri Bhavan
Haddows Road, Nungambakkam
Chennai 600 006.
2. NLC Mazdoor Sangh
rep. by its General Secretary V.Murugan
Viswakarma Bhavan
D-24, Perumal Kovil Salai
Block No.27
Neyveli 607 803.
3. CITU NLC Labour and Staff Union
rep. by its General Secretary
Behind CBS, Block No.24
Neyveli 607 801.
__________
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.605 of 2021
4. N.L.C. Pattali Thozhil Sangam
rep. by its V.Thilakar
General Secretary
D-10, K.N.Subburaman Salai
Block 19
Neyveli-3. ... Respondents
[R2 to R4 impleaded vide order dated 10.03.2021
in CMP Nos.4729, 4802 & 4859 of 2021]
Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 19.01.2021 made in W.P.No.1173 of 2021
For Appellant :: Mr.N.G.R.Prasad
For Mr.R.Rajaram
For Respondents :: Mr.V.Chandrasekaran
for respondent-1
Mr.P.Wilson, S.C.
for Mr.A.Deivasigamani
for respondents 2 to 4
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
The matter pertains to the trade union elections in the Neyveli
Lignite Corporation. The appeal is directed against an order of January
19, 2021 passed on a recent writ petition. The writ petition was
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.605 of 2021
disposed of by giving a limited direction to the Deputy Chief Labour
Commissioner (Central) to consider the request of the writ petitioner
Union, in consultation with all the stakeholders and take a decision as
to whether the writ petitioner union could be permitted to participate
in the election.
2. Admittedly, there is an embargo on any trade union which is
registered for less than a year to participate in any election. The writ
petition was directed against such embargo and the Writ Court did not
undo the prohibition, but merely required the Labour Commissioner to
consider the matter in consultation with other trade unions. In the
appeal received from the order, the following direction was issued on
February 25, 2021:
“Subject to the outcome of the present writ appeal,
the union election shall be conducted, but the results
alone shall be withheld.
Post on 10.03.2021."
3. In the context of the present appeal, there does not appear to
be any justification to continue the wholly unreasoned order dated
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.605 of 2021
February 25, 2021 particularly in the light of vehement objection
thereto by the rival trade unions.
4. The issue in the writ petition was whether a particular
provision in the Code of Discipline had to be adhered to and whether a
newly-formed union could enter the election fray without the
mandatory waiting period of a year. The prayer was not entertained
and a consensus was permitted to be arrived at, so that if the other
participants in the election did not have any objection, the writ
petitioner union could also participate in such election. However, most
of the trade unions did not agree with the writ petitioner for the
relevant provision not to be given effect to.
5. There are several reasons why the appeal is liable to be
dismissed as it it is utterly unmeritorious and without any basis. First,
the writ petitioner has allowed the order under appeal to be worked
out before prosecuting the appeal. It is elementary that when such a
course of adoption is adopted, the appellant is precluded from
proceeding with the appeal.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.605 of 2021
6. Secondly, there is a clear bar which is admitted and neither
the Writ Court could have had the authority to remove the bar, nor can
the other trade unions, which objected to the writ petitioner's
participation in the election, be blamed for taking such a stand in
accordance with the relevant provision.
7. Finally, the petitioner relies on an order dated December 11,
2007 passed in Writ Appeal Nos.502 and 503 of 2005 and places the
operative part thereof at paragraph 23. Clause (a) of the relevant
paragraph of the judgment reads as follows:
"(a) the employer shall hold a secret ballot, under
the supervision and control of the Regional Labour
Commissioner (Central), Sastri Bhavan, Chennai,
within a period of 3 months, to test the strength of
all the Trade Unions.” (Emphasis supplied)
8. The appellant first suggests that the bar that the appellant
now finds was not in place at the time when the judgment was
delivered. This is clearly wrong as the Code of Discipline has contained
the same prohibition from 1958, debarring newly-formed unions from
participating in elections within one year of their formation.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.605 of 2021
9. The appellant further claims that the expression used in the
order is “all the Trade Unions” and, therefore, whether or not a trade
union has been formed less than a year prior to the election is not
relevant in the context of the said order. Such contention has to be
stated to be rejected. The order of the Court dated December 11,
2007 cannot be twisted out of context to imply that it undid a
prohibition in the applicable rules by using the expression as
underlined. The relevant words, “all the Trade Unions”, must be read
to mean and imply “all trade unions entitled to participate in the
election” and not otherwise.
10. The appellant also suggests that it would be undemocratic to
disenfranchise a group of persons only because their union has been
recently formed and the date of formation of a union may have no
nexus with the right to participate in an election. Every election is
governed by a set of rules. The rules in this case do not permit a
union formed less than a year before the election is conducted to
participate in such election. The rule has been in vogue for long and
there does not appear to be any apparent arbitrariness in the
prohibition that the appellant protests.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.605 of 2021
11. For the reasons aforesaid, W.A.No.605 of 2021 is dismissed.
The order passed in this appeal on February 25, 2021 is vacated
forthwith. There will be no impediment to the election being
conducted, if the process has not been completed by now, or in the
results being declared.
There will be no order as to costs.
(S.B., CJ.) (S.K.R., J.)
10.03.2021
Index : No
kpl/suk
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.605 of 2021
To:
The Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central)
No.26, III Block
5th Floor, Shastri Bhavan
Haddows Road, Nungambakkam
Chennai 600 006.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.605 of 2021
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.
(kpl / suk)
W.A.No.605 of 2021
10.03.2021
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
