IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2009 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 34399 of 2009(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- KOCHI REFINERIES WORKES'S UNION, REG. NO. 07-10/05, AMBALAMUGAL 682 302, REP. BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY. BY ADV. MR.THAMPAN THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE GENERAL MANAGER (HR), B.P.C.L. KOCHI REFINERY, AMBALAMUGAL 682 302. 2. THE DIRECTOR (HR), BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, 4 & 6 BELLARD ESTATE, CURRIM BHAY ROAD, MUMBAI 400 001. 3. UNION GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, REP. BY SECRETARY OF PETROLEUM MINISTRY, NEW DELHI. 4. REU (R) REP. BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, KOCHI REFINERIES LIMITED, AMBALAMUGAL 682 302. BY ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J ................................................ W.P(C) No. 34399 of 2009 ................................................. Dated this the 10th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a union of workman of the BPCL, Kochi Refinery. In this case they are raising a grievance that the respondents 1 and 2 are taking a discriminatory attitude in the matter of recognition of unions of workmen of the management for bilateral discussions on demands of workers. According to the petitioner, hitherto the policy adopted by the management was to grant recognition to unions who have minimum 15% representation of workmen. On the ground that the petitioner union did not have 15% representation of workmen, the petitioner has not been recognized hitherto. The petitioner asserts that the petitioner has more than 15% membership of the workmen of the management. The management has now taken a policy decision to recognise only those unions who have minimum 25% representation of the total workmen. The petitioner challenges that policy decision also on the ground that the action is discriminatory insofar as the management is in fact allowing another union who does not have 25% representation to take part in the negotiations. The petitioner W.P(C) No. 34399 of 2009 -2- therefore seeks the following reliefs: “i) to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction calling for the records in this case and quash Exhibit P6 notification prescribing 25% as the required membership of trade union as a negotiating body in B.P.C.L. Kochi Refinery. ii) to declare that 15% of the total confirmed employees is the required membership to become a recognized union in B.P.C.L. Kochi Refinery as it is done earlier and to direct that the petitioner union to be recognized as a negotiating body for the workers. iii) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction compelling the respondents to conduct a verification and decide the recognized union in B.P.C.L. Kochi Refinery for negotiation.” 2. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 on instructions submits that the management has infact taken a policy decision to grant recognition only to those unions who have minimum 25% representation from among the workmen. It is categorically asserted that when that policy decision is implemented that would be uniformly implemented and no union who does not have minimum 25% representation would not be recognized and would not be allowed to participate in negotiations regarding service conditions of workmen of the management. In view of that undertaking by the Standing Counsel for the management, I do not think that any further orders are necessary in this writ petition except to record that undertaking. W.P(C) No. 34399 of 2009 -3- 3. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the policy decision itself on the ground that it is arbitrary and violative of the fundamental rights of the workmen. I am of opinion that such a decision should more appropriately be challenged before the authorities under the Industrial Disputes Act by raising an Industrial Dispute, in which Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court has powers to interfere with that policy decision if appropriate grounds are made out. The counsel for the management would even contend that whether such a decision can be validly interfered itself is an Industrial Dispute. I leave it open for the appropriate authority to consider in accordance with law without expressing any opinion on the sustainability of such a dispute. The counsel for the petitioner would submit that the minimum representation of unions should be ascertained by a secret ballot. I am not expressing any opinion on the same since that is not a prayer included in the writ petition by the petitioner. Accordingly leaving it open to the parties to agitate the matter in an industrial dispute, the writ petition is disposed of as above. sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs // True copy // PA to Judge