IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2008 / 1ST MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 1298 of 2008(D) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------------------- STATE FARMING CORPORATION LABOURS UNION STATE FARMING CORPORATION STAFF CONGRESS (INTUC-1) NEHRU CENTRE, VALAKODE P.O., PUNALUR REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, ADV. K.A.NAZEER. BY ADV. SRI.K.SASIKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE FARMING CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD VETTITHITTA, ALIMUKKU, PUNALUR,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE ELECTORAL OFFICER (REFERENDUM) STATE FARMING CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD VETTITHITTA, ALIMUKKU, PUNALUR. 3. THE RETURNING OFFICER (REFERENDUM) STATE FARMING CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD VETTITHITTA, ALIMUKKU, PUNALUR. 4. REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER, KOLLAM. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. Kss ..2/- ....2..... WPC.NO.1298/2008 D *ADDL.R6 TO R13 ARE IMPLEADED: R6. KERALA PLANTATION EMPLOYEES UNION (CITU), CITU OFFICE, PUNALUR REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY. R7. KERALA STATE FARMING CORPORATION WORKERS FEDERATION (CITU) CPI (M) OFFICE, PATHANAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY. R8. KERALA STATE FARMING CORPORATION EMPLOYEES UNION AITUC, CPI MANDALAM COMMITTEE OFFICE, PATHANAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY. R9. KERALA STATE FARMING CORPORATION RUBBER PLANATATION WORKERS UNION AITUC, CPI MANDALAM COMMITTEE OFFICE, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY. R10. KOLLAM DISTRICT PLANTATION AND FOREST GENERAL WORKERS UNION BMS, BMS OFFICE, MUNICIPAL BUILDING, PUNALUR REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY. R11. KERALA STATE FARMING CORPORATION WORKERS UNION KTUC (M) KTUC (M) OFFICE, PATHANAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY. R12. KERALA STATE FARMING CORPORTION AND PLANTATION LABOUR UNION KTUC (J), KTUC (J) OFFICE, PATHANAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY. R13. KERALA STATE FARMING CORPORATION WORKERS ASSOCIATION INTUC, INTUC OFFICE, PATHANAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY GENERAL SECRETARY. (*ADDL.R6 TO R13 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 16/01/2008 IN I.A.NO.760/2008) BY ADV. SRI.AJITH KRISHNAN,SC,STATE FARMING CORPN. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR SRI.MANU GOVIND BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/01/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.1298/2008 D APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT DTD. 17/3/1995. EXT.P2: COPY OF A MODEL APPOINTMENT ORDER ALONG WITH THE SERVICE CONDITIONS. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE MINUTES DTD. 13/11/2007 OF THE JOINT MEETING CONVENED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P4; COPY OF THE OBJECTION DTD. 22/12/2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD.22/12/2007 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 1/1/2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE VOTERS LIST IN THE 'STAFF CONSTITUENCY' OF THE COMPANY. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE VOTERS LIST IN 'WORKERS CONSTITUENCY' FROM LATEX CENTRIFUGING FACTORY, CHITHALVETTI. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 29/06/06 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING IN RESPECT OF THE REFERENDUM DTD. 02/01/2008. EXT.P11: COPY OF LETTER DTD. 10/01/2008 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER UNION. 1ST RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(A): COPY OF THE SAME GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.8729/PU2/2000/AD DTD. 7/06/2000. EXT.R1(B): COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DTD. 5/04/1997. EXT.R1(C): COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT NUMBR G.248/02. 9TH RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT: EXT.R9(A): COPY OF MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON 2/01/08. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.1298 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a Union of employees of the 1st respondent State Farming Corporation of Kerala Limited. They are aggrieved by the action of the 1st respondent in conducting a referendum for recognition of Unions of workers of the 1st respondent on the basis of Ext.P7 list of persons eligible for voting in the referendum, on the ground that persons, who are not eligible to be included in the voters list, are included therein. Their grievance is in respect of inclusion of Security Guards and temporary workers of the 1st respondent in the voters list. They would contend that in Ext.P1 settlement, which is the original settlement in respect of conducting of referendum for recognition of the trade unions of the 1st respondent, the security staff working in the 1st respondent Corporation is excluded from the purview of settlement. They would further submit that Ext.P2, which is the service conditions applicable to security workers, specifically prohibits security workers from taking membership in W.P.(c)No.1298/08 2 the trade unions except in an association exclusively comprising of security workers. According to them, as is clear from Ext.P3 minutes of the meeting convened by the Regional Joint Commissioner on 13.11.2007 for discussion of the modalities of conducting referendum, they had specifically objected to inclusion of security workers as well as temporary workers. In Ext.P3, it is specifically agreed that temporary workers would be excluded from the referendum. Regarding other matters, Ext.P3 itself says that for taking a final decision in respect thereof another meeting would be held. According to them another meeting was held on 2.1.2008, in which it has been specifically agreed that in respect of the right of the security workers for participating in the referendum, a decision would be intimated to the petitioner Union by the Electoral Officer and they have been informed by Ext.P11 by the Electoral Officer that as per the legal advice received by the 1st respondent, there is no objection in including the security workers also in the referendum. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “i) to call for the records leading to the W.P.(c)No.1298/08 3 issue of Exts.P7 & P8 so far as those lists include security staff and temporary casual workers respectively by the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari. ii) to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing respondents 1 to 3 to eliminate security staff from Ext.P7 voters list and also to eliminate temporary casual workers at serial Nos. 18 to 33 in Ext.P8 voters list and re-draft the voters list accordingly for the referendum. 2. The 1st respondent and respondents 7 to 9 and 11 to 13 contest the writ petition by filing statement/counter affidavit. According to them, Ext.P3 is a conciliation settlement whereby despite the objection of the petitioner Union regarding participation of security workers in the referendum, by majority decision it has been decided to include them also in the referendum. Therefore these respondents would contend that the petitioner Union cannot now take a stand contrary to Ext.P3, which is a conciliation settlement. Regarding the temporary workers, their contention is that these temporary workers although styled as temporary casuals, have been working in the 1st respondent Corporation for years together and they have acquired the status of permanent workmen and therefore they cannot be W.P.(c)No.1298/08 4 excluded from the referendum. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. I shall consider the question of validity of the inclusion of the temporary workers in the voters list for the purpose of referendum first. I had specifically put a question to the standing counsel for the 1st respondent as to whether the temporary workers about whom complaint is made by the petitioner are permanent workers of the 1st respondent Corporation. The standing counsel could not give a categoric assertion that they are permanent workers of the corporation. On other hand he frankly admits that although the Board of Directors have taken a decision to regularise their services, the Government has by Ext.P9 rejected the proposal for regularising them. Of course, the standing counsel for the 1st respondent would take a contention that the 1st respondent has taken the matter again with the Government on which action is still pending. Whatever that be, it cannot be disputed by these respondents that the temporary workers in respect of inclusion of whom in the voters list the petitioner has objected, have not been accepted as permanent workers W.P.(c)No.1298/08 5 of the Corporation. In Ext.P3 it is specifically agreed that the temporary workers shall be excluded from the voters list for the purpose of referendum. That being so, the respondents cannot now take a stand that because these workers are working in the Corporation for quite some time, they shall be treated as permanent workers especially when Ext.P3 refers to exclusion of temporary workers. As such, I hold that inclusion of temporary workers in the voters list for the purpose of referendum is against Ext.P3 decision itself. Therefore they shall be excluded from the voters list for the purpose of referendum. 4. The next question relates to the validity of inclusion of security workers in the voters list for the purpose of conducting referendum. The 1st respondent does not dispute that in Ext.P1 settlement, which is a conciliation settlement between the management and Unions of the 1st respondent, it has been specifically stated that the security staff working in the State Farming Corporation will not come under the purview of Ext.P1 settlement, which is the settlement entered into in respect of conducting referendum for recognition of trade unions in the 1st respondent Corporation. The standing W.P.(c)No.1298/08 6 counsel also does not dispute that Ext.P2 contains the service conditions of security workers of the Corporation, wherein their participation in trade unions other than in an association consisting exclusively of themselves is prohibited. 5. I am of opinion that there is a wholesome object behind these specific conditions in Ext.P2 service conditions of security workers. The security workers are entrusted with the specific task of protecting the properties of the 1st respondent Corporation. In safeguarding the properties of the Corporation, the Security Guards would even have to act against the other workers. If they are permitted to take part in a referendum, which is for the purpose of recognition of trade unions, they will have to necessarily show some allegiance to one of the trade unions, in which case they would not be able to protect the properties of the Company as against the members of those unions in cases of strikes espoused by such unions. 6. In any event, I am not satisfied that Ext.P3 is a conciliation settlement. The heading of Ext.P3 itself is that it is only a minutes of the meeting of the concerned parties held on 13.11.2007. In the same, the objection raised by the W.P.(c)No.1298/08 7 petitioner Union against exclusion of security workers in the referendum has been specifically noted. In clause 12 of Ext.P3, it has has been specifically stated that in respect of final procedure for conducting referendum a further meeting would be held on 11.1.2008. It is not disputed before me that by Ext.P10 minutes, it has been specifically agreed that the petitioner would be informed by the Electoral Officer regarding the decision to include security workers in the referendum and that by Ext.P11 a decision has been communicated to the petitioner. Therefore the respondents mentioned above cannot now take a stand that Ext.P3 is a conciliation settlement and the decision, to include the security workers also in the referendum, contained in Ext.P3 is binding on the petitioner also. Therefore in any view of the matter the security workers are not entitled to be included in the referendum. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and it is held that the security workers and temporary workers are not entitled to be included in the voters list for the purpose of conducting the referendum. Therefore, there would be a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to see that the security workers and W.P.(c)No.1298/08 8 temporary workers shall be excluded from the voters list while conducting the referendum. The 4th respondent is directed to ensure that the referendum is conducted after excluding the security workers and the temporary workers from the voters list for the purpose of conducting the referendum. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)No.1298/08 9