The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of ensuring representation of workmen in collective bargaining and protecting their fundamental rights under Article 19 (1) (c) of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Appeal has been filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order, dated 24.11.2022 made in W.P.(MD)No.25032 of 2022 on the file of this Court.)

D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J.

This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court, dated 24.11.2022 in W.P.(MD)No.25032 of 2022, in and by which the writ petition was disposed of by directing the respondents in the writ petition to invite and permit the group led by Thiru.R.Kalyanakmar, the petitioner therein to participate in the petition mentioned meetings. The learned Single Judge also made the order subject to any order including interim order that may be passed in the civil suit pending between the parties.

1.1. The factual matrix in which, the case arises is that the first respondent, namely, Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited recognizes Trade Unions to participate in the meetings to represent the interest of the workman, based on the votes secured by the various Unions. Accordingly, for the year 2002, election was held. The Trade Union by name Bioler Plant Employees Union/INTUC, represented by the President, Mr.R.Kalyanakumar (the writ petitioner), secured 579 votes and as such, was entitled to represent in the meetings. At this juncture, the appellant/third respondent submitted a representation to the Management stating that they have already filed a civil suit to declare their election as valid and thereby questioning the election under which, the petitioner lead faction was elected and requested that they should not be allowed to represent the Union in the meetings. Based on the said representation, the first respondent Management addressed the Joint of Commissioner of Labour, Trichy. The Joint Commissioner of Labour, Trichy had submitted a report that the writ petitioner faction is the one, which has majority and having been duly elected.

2. However, vide letter dated 12.05.2022 he communicated that he had issued only an advisory letter on 18.02.2022 to both the factions and that he does not have power or jurisdiction and pass orders as to which of the rival groups of office bearers of the Trade Union is holding majority and that the same has to be decided by the civil Court.

2.1. Based on the said opinion, an order dated 22.09.2022 was passed by the Management by requiring the writ petitioner to obtain suitable order from the civil Court to recognize the office bearers of the Union. Challenging the said order, the writ petition was filed.

3. The learned Single Judge, even though held that the order passed by the Management was in order, further found (i) that the letter dated 13.01.2022 issued by the All India President INTUC only recognized the writ petitioner; (ii) the prima facie findings can be inferable from the communication of the Commissioner of Labour, Trichy; (iii) the appellant Thiru.B.Balasubramani faction even though filed a civil suit, did not obtain any interim order in the civil Court; (iv) if relief is not granted in the writ petition that would lead to a situation, where the Union itself would not get a representation even though it has secured the third rank. The learned Single Judge had also during the course of the hearing suggested to the respondents for a show of strength before the Court, which has been refused by the appellant/third respondent. For all the above reasons, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition on the terms aforementioned.

4. Feeling aggrieved, the third respondent in the writ petition, namely, Mr.P.Balasubramani has filed the appeal.

5. Mr.S.K.Mani, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that firstly, securing votes in respect of representation in the meetings has no connection with the internal election of the Union as such. The election of the writ petitioner lead factions is said to have been conducted in a tiny room, which cannot house the 750 persons said to have participated in the election. On