1964 Supreme(Cal) 263

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
D. Basu
EASTERN RAILWAY EMPLOYEES CONGRESS - Appellant
Versus
GENERAL MANAGER, EASTERN RAILWAY - Respondent
Matter 310  Of  1963
Decided On : DECEMBER 10, 1964

The withdrawal of recognition from a trade union must be for a 'due cause' and after giving 'opportunity' to the association concerned "to show cause against such withdrawal."

Headnote:

EASTERN RAILWAY EMPLOYEES CONGRESS - RAILWAY ESTABLISHMENT CODE - RECOGNITION OF TRADE UNION - WITHDRAWAL OF RECOGNITION - DUE CAUSE - OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW CAUSE - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - JURISDICTION - MANDAMUS.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a trade union of railway employees, was granted recognition by the Government of India subject to certain terms and conditions. One of these conditions was that the petitioner would revise its constitution to bring it in conformity with the terms of Part C of Appendix XIII of the Railway Establishment Code, Vol. I. The petitioner alleged that before it could take steps in the matter of revision of its constitution, the General Manager of the Eastern Railway, at the instance of the Chief Personnel Officer, arbitrarily and illegally deleted from its order of recognition, one of the branches of the petitioner, namely, the Printing Branch. By another order, the Chief Personnel Officer directed an examination of the books of account and membership register and as a result, the petitioner alleged, all the books of the petitioner were detained in its head office and its normal functioning was hampered so that it was not possible to convene the annual general meeting of the petitioner trade union at which only the constitution could be revised. On July 22, 1963, a charge-sheet issued by respondent No. 1 was served upon the petitioner to show cause why the recognition granted to the petitioner should not be withdrawn in view of two charges, which are as follows: "1. Violating the terms and conditions of recognition granted to you under this office letter No. AE. 4223/11/ec dated 7-2-62, in that-Non-production of the pledge forms of railway employees, who are members of the Eastern Railway Employees' Congress, when demanded by the administration under letter No. AE. 4223/ec dated 21-3-63, on the ground that it was not obligatory and that such forms are to be signed only when they are required to be done by the Working Committee vide your letter No. WP/c/org/63 dated 23-3-63. This is in direct contravention of para 13 of Part C of Appendix XIII of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Vol. I (1951 edition), and para 5 of the Constitution of the Eastern Railway Employees Congress. 2. Inflating the number of members: (a) by showing some persons twice in the same year. A few such cases are shown in Annexure 'a', (b) by showing names of employees when such persons were not really members of the Eastern Railway Employees' Congress. A few such cases are shown vide Annexure 'b' ".

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the impugned order withdrawing the recognition granted to the petitioner union was ultra vires and void in toto as it was made without giving proper 'opportunity' to show cause as required by Rule 1 of Part B of Appendix XIII of the Railway Establishment Code, Vol. I and hence, the impugned order has been vitiated by want of jurisdiction. It also contravenes the principles of natural justice in so far as they are implicit in the Rule itself.

Issues: 1. Whether the impugned order withdrawing the recognition granted to the petitioner union was ultra vires and void in toto? 2. Whether the impugned order contravenes the principles of natural justice?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the impugned order was ultra vires and void in toto as it was made without giving proper 'opportunity' to show cause as required by Rule 1 of Part B of Appendix XIII of the Railway Establishment Code, Vol. I and hence, the impugned order has been vitiated by want of jurisdiction. 2. The court held that the impugned order contravenes the principles of natural justice in so far as they are implicit in the Rule itself.

Final Decision: The petition was allowed. The Rule was made absolute with costs, and an order of mandamus was issued directing the respondents to cancel the impugned order dated the 5th August, 1963 and directing them not to give effect to the same against the petitioner.