J U D G M E N T

The instant writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for directions to respondent nos.1 to 4, to initiate the process of verification of membership of trade unions operating in the establishment of respondent no.1-Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., Delhi Unit (hereinafter „MTNL‟) through secret ballot in terms of the Code of Discipline (hereinafter „CoD‟), in order to set in motion the process of election.

2. The petitioner is a trade union registered under the Trade Union Act, 1926 and claims to be operating in MTNL and is also affiliated to the Indian National Trade Union Congress. The process of identification or verification of membership of majority unions operating in MTNL through secret ballot is laid down in the guidelines titled as “Second Term Year 2002 for Verification of Membership of Unions Operating in MTNL Delhi unit through Secret Ballot” (hereinafter „Guidelines‟), which mandates to act in accordance with the CoD for recognition of a majority union.

3. The facts of the present case would reveal that on 11.10.2012, an election through secret ballot was conducted for verification of membership of unions operating in MTNL. Pursuant to the said election, respondent no.5-MTNL Mazdoor Sangh emerged victorious by securing the highest number of votes and was recognized as the majority union for the term of two years with effect from 11.10.2012. Since the period of recognition was slated to end on 10.10.2014, various other trade unions including the petitioner are stated to have made several representations to initiate the process of election for verification of membership of unions operating in MTNL.

4. Even after the expiry of the term of recognition of respondent no.5, the petitioner claims to have made several communications to respondent nos.1 to 4 with a request to conduct the exercise of verification, but to no avail. Thereafter, being aggrieved by the inaction of respondent nos. 1 to 4 to accede to the demand of other trade unions for orchestrating elections and rather, continuing the recognition of respondent no.5 as the majority union, the petitioner has filed the instant petition on 25.04.2016.

5. However, at the outset, the respondents have raised a preliminary objection on the ground of maintainability of writ petition as the CoD, which is pressed into service, has no statutory basis as also on the ground that the petitioner has no locus standii since the same is a defunct trade union. The respondents submit that in any case, for enforcement of any right emanating from the CoD, no writ should be entertained.

6. Ms. Sriparna Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 3, submitted that the said Code is merely a voluntary agreement entered into between the management and workers and is not amenable to interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

7. Learned counsel relied upon the decision of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in the case of Reddys Formulation Techops-

II v. Govt. of Telangana1, to substantiate her submissions.

8. Further, Mr. Neeraj Dutt Gaur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.5 submitted that any union can challenge the status of a recognised majority union only on two grounds, namely i) locus standii and ii) violation of the rules, regulations and bye-laws of the CoD. He contended that the present petition is being contested through Sh. Mange Ram Sharma, who otherwise has no authority to represent the petitioner as there exist no rules, regulations or bye-laws to constitute an ad-hoc committee under the presidentship of the Vice- President of the union. According to him, Sh. Mange Ram Sharma has illegally obtained the authority to pursue the present litigation, in addition to the fact that the petitioner has already become defunct and therefore, the petitioner has no locus standii in the instant matter.

9. Countering the aforenoted submissions, Mr. Deepak Tyagi, learned counsel appear