The court emphasized the importance of timely objections in the election process and upheld the validity of the election result based on the clear intention of the voters and the method of draw of lots.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner in the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks for quashing of the letter dated 03.06.2022, issued by respondent No.3-Chief Election Office/ Returning Officer (RO), whereby, the RO declared respondent No.4-Baljeet Yadav as an elected member of the works committee with respect to Constituency No.4 of Ordnance Depot, Shakurpur Basti, Delhi-110056. The petitioner is also challenging the letters dated 06.06.2022 and 11.06.2022 passed by respondent No.2 dismissing the objections raised by the petitioner to the election result.

2. The facts of the case relevant for the adjudication of the controversy involved herein are that the petitioner is an employee of the Ordnance Depot, Shakurpur Basti, Delhi-110056. The Ordnance Depot falls within the definition of an 'establishment' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). As per Section 3 of the Act, works committees are to be constituted in all establishments where 100 or more workmen are employed or have been employed on any date in the preceding 12 months. For the purpose of conducting elections, rules have been framed known as the Industrial (Central) Rules, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). Part VII of the Rules deals with the constitution of the works committee. On 05.05.2022, respondent No.2 had issued the order announcing the schedule for the election of works committee, which was to be conducted on 02.06.2022. Respondent No.3 was appointed as the RO for overseeing the election process.

3. On 25.05.2022, respondent No.3 issued the criteria directions/instructions for the candidates, their agents and the voters. On 02.06.2022, voting took place and 87 members casted their votes. After the counting was over, on 03.06.2022, respondent No.3 announced the result declaring respondent No.4 as the elected candidate. On the same day, the petitioner raised an objection/appeal to the Appellate Authority i.e. respondent No.2-Officiating Commandant, who vide order dated 06.06.2022 rejected the same. The petitioner again filed objections by way of review, it also suffered the same fate and was rejected. Accordingly, the petitioner has approached this court in the instant petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that the elections are to be conducted strictly in accordance with the applicable guidelines. According to him, Clause 8(d) of the instructions dated 25.05.2022 leaves no iota of doubt that no discretion in favour of any of the candidates, can be exercised by the RO. In case, the procedure prescribed therein is violated, election stands vitiated. He explains that the voter cannot put any kind of mark of identification or attach anything along with the ballot paper as otherwise such a marking or attachment on or along with the ballot paper will make the vote invalid, before counting of votes. He states that in the instant case, if the mark for the purpose of casting vote, in question, is seen, the same would indicate that it is not permissible and an altogether different mark has been used for casting of the votes than the mark which was prescribed by the RO. He has indicated both the marks in his list of dates to explain that they do not even remotely resemble each other. He, therefore, states that the entire election procedure is vitiated on account of counting of 4 such votes in favour of respondent No.4, which ought to have been rejected. He states that there were 42 clear votes which the petitioner had undisputedly obtained and 38 votes were clear in favour of respondent No.4. However, on account of the counting of 4 disputed votes, the votes obtained by both the candidates were the same.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that in case of a tie, the respondents were to draw lots in the presence of the RO and the concerned candidates, for deciding the winning candidate. He submits that in the present case, tossing of