IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment established that while the classification and restriction on trade union activities were valid, the specific rule prohibiting employees from seeking membership of any registered trade union or indulging in trade union activities unreasonably restricted the rights of the supervisory staff and violated Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT

1. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent Corporation NEEPCO by an office order dated 22.04.2021 in the Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1980 governing all employees, had inserted Sub-Rule (iii) in Rule 8 of the said Rules which stipulated that no employees to whom the said Rules apply shall seek membership of any registered trade union or indulge in trade union activities. The petitioners 1, 2 and 3 being the Employees Workers Union in the NEEPCO and its office bearers petitioners 4, 5 and 6, being aggrieved by the said amendment have assailed the same on the core ground that Rule 8 (iii) suppresses the fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed under the Constitution of India, and as such have prayed for setting aside and quashing the impugned Sub-Rule.

2. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioners by the learned Senior counsel Mr. H.L. Shangreiso that the Trade Unions Act, 1926, being a special law has inbuilt provisions regulating the purpose for formation, registration, membership, dis-membership of trade unions, not only for the workmen but for other employees in their positions as Executives or Supervisors engaged in an establishment or industry. He submits that it also encompasses non-employee and outsiders with some exceptions. The learned Senior counsel contends that those categories as provided under Section 22 (3) of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 can become members of trade union and also office bearers, and as such in NEEPCO, neither the Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules (CDA), Industrial Employment (Standing Orders), Act, 1946, or NEEPCO Standing Orders 1980, can prevent or take away the fundamental and legal rights of the petitioners. It is also submitted that the writ petitioners' association since their formation have been functioning well in coordination with the respondent NEEPCO and that it is not the case of the respondent, that the objectives or activities of the writ petitioners' association have now become contrary to law, to warrant the insertion of the impugned Sub-Rule. It is also contended that the Industrial Disputes Act, the Trade Unions Act and Standing Orders or for that matter any other statute, have any legal bar prohibiting non-workmen such as Supervisors, from being involved in trade union activities.

3. The learned Senior counsel then submits that the respondent NEEPCO, cannot seek to maintain that the impugned Sub- Rule is a reasonable classification, or restriction under Article 14 or Article 19 (4) of the Constitution, inasmuch as, the field is already covered by the Trade Unions Act, 1926 read with the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He further submits that the power vested in NEEPCO, is only to regulate their normal service conditions under the CDA Rules. It is also submitted that the NEEPCO through the impugned Sub-Rule, is incompetent to take away the membership, or impede the formation of trade unions, which is guaranteed under Article 19 (1)(c) of the Constitution. He submits that the impugned Sub-Rule which confers sweeping unregulated and unrestricted powers upon the employees is arbitrary and unreasonable and against democratic values. In support of these arguments, the learned Senior counsel has relied upon the following judgments: -

i) O.K. Ghosh v. E.X. Joseph reported in AIR 1963 SC 812 - (Para 10 to 12)

ii) Smti Damyanti Naranga v. Union of India (5B) reported in (1971) 1 SCC 678 - (Para 10)

iii) State of U.P. v. C.O.D Chheoki Employees Corporative Society Ltd. reported in (1997) 3 SCC 681 - (Para 6 and 16)

iv) Andhra Pradesh Dairy Development Corporation Federation v. B Narasimha Reddy (2B) reported in (2011) 9 SCC 286 - (Para 21, 26 and 29)

v) Board of Control of Cricket v. Cricket Association of Bihar reported in (2016) 9 SCC 286 - (Para 57 to 59)

vi) Bikajan Cement Corporation Employees Union v. Cement Corporation of India Ltd. reported in (2004) 1 SCC 142 - (Para 13 to 17)

vii) SBI Staff Association v. SBI (2B) reported in AIR 1996 SC 1685 - (P