IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 11540 of 2009 Between: Precot B Mills Employees Union Rep. by its General Secretary, D.V. Jaya Ram Reddy, R/o. Kondigenahalli, Anantapur District. Registration No. F-630, Room No.8, Maruthi Buildings, Hindupuram - 515 201, Anantapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Commissioner of Labour RTC X Roads, Hyderabad. 2 The Returning Officer and Deputy Commissioner of Labour Anantapur, Anantapur Dist. 3 M/s. Precot Meridian Limited Rep. by its General Manager Kodigenahalli, H S Mandir, Hindupur, Anantapur. 4 Precot " B " Yound Workers Union Registration No. 1604 Kodigenahalli, Hindupur, Anantapur. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order, direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any othe appropriate writ declaring the Proceedings in Rc. No. B/2330/2006, Dated 4-6-2009 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (FAC), Anantapur for conducting of elections only for casual workers on 16-6-2009as illegal, arbitrary and without any objective consideration and consequently set aside the proceedings Rc. No. B/2330/2006, Dated 4-6-2009 with a further direction to the 1st and 2nd Respondents to determine the majority Union operating in the 3rd Respondent Unit under the Code of Discipline by conducting elections for both Permanent and Casual workers working in the Unit as on 1-6-2009. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner and the fourth respondent herein are the two trade unions operating in the third respondent company. In the year 2007, when elections were held for determination of the majority union, the petitioner filed W.P.No.5466 of 2007 alleging that the procedure followed by the second respondent in holding elections on 19.03.2007 without finalizing the voters list was illegal. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 07.08.2007 directing the second respondent to take into consideration the list furnished by the management as to the casual workers working in the organization as on 19.03.2007 and conduct fresh verification so far as the casual workers are concerned. The second respondent was also directed to allow only those casual workers who are the members of either of the union making it clear that those who are not the members of the union as on 19.03.2007 shall not be permitted to participate in the verification. However the Assistant Commissioner of Labour without making such verification fixed the date of polling for casual workers. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner union filed W.P.No.25557 of 2007 and by order dated 30.11.2007 interim stay was granted by this Court. Subsequently the said order was modified by order dated 18.02.2009 granting liberty to the authorities to proceed with the verification of the union membership. Pursuant thereto, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour who was appointed as the Verification Officer/Returning Officer, convened a meeting on 01.06.2009 proposing to conduct the elections with 238 casual workers working as on 19.03.2007 as per the list submitted by the management. The petitioner union addressed a letter dated 03.06.2009 stating that since the elections were held in the year 2007, no purpose would be served by conducting the elections only for the casual workers working as on 19.03.2007 and therefore fresh election of both permanent and casual workers as on date may be conducted. Since the second respondent failed to consider the said request, the present writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour dated 04.06.2009 proposing to conduct election only for casual workers as arbitrary and illegal. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the fourth respondent union and perused the material on record. Having regard to the admitted fact that the election was initially held in the year 2007, I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no purpose would be served by conducting elections only for the casual workers working as on 19.03.2007. Apparently 19.03.2007 was the date fixed for earlier elections and more than two years have elapsed thereafter. In view of the long lapse of time it would be appropriate to conduct a fresh election by taking into consideration both the permanent and casual workmen as on 01.06.2009 for proper determination of the majority union. The learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent union has fairly conceded for adopting such a procedure. In the circumstances, the impugned proceedings dated 04.06.2009 is hereby set aside and the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to determine the majority Union operating in the third respondent Unit as per the Code of Discipline by conducting elections for both permanent and casual workers working in the Unit as on 01.06.2009. No costs. _______________ G.ROHINI,J July 13, 2009. Ivd/Gbs