IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 20TH MAGHA 1930 WA.No. 2087 of 2007() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.15492/2007 Dated 24/05/2007 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ----------------------------------- THE TRAVANCORE CEMENTS WORKERS' ASSOCIATION, REG. NO.5/2/2007, NATTAKAM, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY VIJU M. THOMAS. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.IYPE SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------- 1. THE TRAVANCORE CEMENTS LTD., NATTAKAM, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE DEPUTY LABOUR OFFICER, KOTTAYAM. ADDL. RESPONDENTS 4 TO 6 IMPLEADED. 4. KOTTAYAM CEMENTS EMPLOYEES UNION, REG. NO.123/52 (INTUC), NATTAKAM, KOTTAYAM. 5. KERALA CEMENTS LABOUR UNION, REG. NO.147/68 (CITU), NATTAKAM, KOTTAYAM. 6. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LABOUR DEPARTMENT. ADDL. R4 TO R6 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 22.8.2007 IN I.A. 707 OF 2007. ADV. SRI.K.ANAND (A.201) FOR R1 SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN FOR R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K. MEERA FOR R2,3,6 ADV.SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE FOR ADDL.R5 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B. KOSHY, Ag. CJ. & P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WRIT APPEAL No. 2087 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of February, 2009. JUDGMENT KOSHY, Ag.CJ, Petitioner is a trade union functioning in the first respondent Company. A referendum was conducted in the first respondent Company for recognition of the union. For the purpose of the recognition of a union, the union must have obtained minimum 15% votes out of the total roll strength. Ext.P1 is the notification to conduct the referendum. Clause 2 of the notification reads as follows: “2. All permanent employees on the rolls of the company except pre-probationers, those on long leave and deputation on 1.4.2007 shall be eligible to be included in the electoral roll.” Objections to the draft rules ought to have been filed on 26.3.2007. Final electoral roll has to be published on 28.3.2007. The date of polling was on 19.4.2007. After finalisation of electoral roll, if a voter has become ineligible to vote, he has to be removed under Clause 24 of Ext.P1. Clause 24 reads as follows: “24. After finalisation of electoral roll and before the date of polling, if any voter becomes ineligible to vote due to WA.2087/2007. 2 death, resignation or termination of employment on any account, such names shall be removed from the electoral roll and the Returning Officer shall publish the names of such removed persons on the date of poll.” At the time of publication of the voters' list, the number of employees was 512, and their names were published. But the contention of the petitioner was that after the time for filing objection and after the publication of the final list three persons became ineligible. One Mr.S.Harikumar resigned from service with effect from 4.4.2007. Two employees, namely, Mr.Shaju Thomas and Mr.K.K.John took long leave for two years. Mr.K.K.John took leave with effect from 1.4.2007 and Mr.Shaju Thomas with effect from 1.2.2007. The names of those persons were included in the list. The contention of the Management is that even though resignation was submitted and leave applications were submitted with regard to those three employees, it was finally approved by the Board after the election and that is the reason for not removing their names from the list. But the fact is that they were not attending the office from the dates mentioned. There is no disputed fact here. If those three names were removed, the petitioner also will get the required number on the basis of Ext.P3. It is true that the validity period of the recognition is also going to be over. At this distance WA.2087/2007. 3 of time, since the facts are not disputed, it is not necessary to drag the petitioner to an industrial dispute. 2. On the basis of these admitted facts, we are of the opinion that the Travancore Cements Workers' Association also should be recognised. But we make it clear that the agreements entered into before this date will be valid and those agreements cannot be challenged. The recognition will have prospective effect till next referendum is conducted. The Writ Appeal is disposed of with the above direction. J.B. KOSHY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.