IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2009 / 27TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 28985 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. E.S.SURESH, AGED 31 YEARS,S/O.SUKUMARAN, RESIDING AT ETHIPPOKKATHU HOUSE, KALADY PLANTATION P.O.,ALUVA, ERNAKULAM. 2. V.G.VIJI, AGED 30 YEARS,W/O.SHYJU, RESIDING AT VAYALIKKUDAM HOUSE, KALADY PLANTATION P.O.,ALUVA, ERNAKULAM. 3. K.J.JOHN, AGED 45 YEARS,S/O.JOSEPH, RESIDING AT KINATTINTEMELETHIL HOUSE, KALADY PLANTATION P.O.,ALUVA,ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.RAJEEV V.KURUP SRI. ALEX M.SCARIA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD.,KANJIKKUZHY,KOTTAYAM-4,REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. MR.N.MOHAN KUMAR, THE GENERAL MANAGER (COSTS) & THE CHIEF RETURNING OFFICER FOR REFERENDUM 2009, THE PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD., KANJIKKUZHY,KOTTAYAM-4. ADV.SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.28985 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. Petitioners are workers in one of the estates owned by the 1st respondent Corporation. The matter involved in this writ petition pertains to the conduct of referendum to recognise trade unions among the labourers of the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent had taken decision to conduct referendum as per Ext.P4 order, grouping various estates under the 1st respondent into 9 units. Petitioners are working within Unit No:3 which consist of 2 distinct estates. According to the petitioner, the proposal for counting of votes in Unit No:3 is on divisional basis, is not correct and proper. It is submitted that each division is having strength of only 12 to 40 employees and if votes are counted separately on divisional basis, it would be easy for the authorities of the 1st respondent to find out as to which union a particular employee had casted his vote. It is apprehended that such a situation will compel the workers to cast their votes against their own conscience, due to apprehension of victimization at the hands of trade union leaders who are already in the Director Board of the 1st respondent W.P.(C).28985/09-P 2 Corporation, as nominees of the Government. 2. It is submitted that in all other units, except in Unit No.3, procedure has been prescribed by the 2nd respondent Returning Officer, on the basis of discussions conducted with representatives of the trade unions, that counting of votes by shuffling the ballets pertaining to all the divisions in a unit will be done. But with respect to Unit No.3, it is alleged that, the votes will be counted separately. This according to the petitioner is on the basis of mandate of some of the Board Members who are prevailing upon the decision of the 2nd respondent. 3. The petitioners have already submitted Ext.P5 representation before the 2nd respondent expressing the above apprehensions and requesting for counting after shuffling of ballet papers from different divisions, within a unit. Since the 2nd respondent is the competent authority vested with the function of conduct of referendum, the procedures has to be evolved by himself on a uniform basis. Needless to say that with respect to the conduct of referendum the prime concern should be that the workers should get a free opportunity to express their conscience in a fearless manner. It is the duty of the 2nd respondent to ensure that facility for secret voting is provided to the workers as far as possible. I do not find any reason as to why W.P.(C).28985/09-P 3 a request in the nature of Ext.P5 could not be considered. However, the 2nd respondent is in seizin of Ext.P5 and he is the competent authority to formulate procedures regarding conduct of elections. 4. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent to take a decision on Ext.P5, after considering the grievance of the petitioners and after taking note of the observations made above. A decision taken in this regard may be intimated to the petitioners within three days of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb