IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 12152 of 2009 Between: Kirby Building systems India Ltd., Employees Union (Regd No. A- 4028)(INTUC) Pashamailaram, Patancheru (Mandal) Medak District. Rep by its General Secretary, Sri. V.S.Raju, S/o. V.Rambhadra Raju, aged 33 years ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Deputy Commissioner of Labour and Returning Officer Sangareddy, Medak District. 2 Kirby Building Systems India Ltd., Employees, Trade Union (Regd No. A-4338) Pashamailaram, Patancheru (Mandal), Medak District, Rep by its General Secretary 3 M/s Kriby Building Systems India Ltd., Rep by tis Managing Director Phase-III, Pashamilaram, Patancheru (Mandal), Medak District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 a written order or direction, more in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings No.A/350/2009, dated 9-6-2009 issued by the 1st respondent, Dy. Commissioner of Labour, Sangareddy in Seeking to exclude the company casuals from the voters list to determine the majority union in a verification election to be held on 27-6-2009 or such other date as illegal, untenable and consequently set aside the same and direct him to conduct the elections including the company casulas in the voters list, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.HARI HARAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No : 12152 of 2009 O R D E R : Petitioner is a registered Employees Union of the 3rd respondent factory. The 2nd respondent herein is also a registered Union of the employees of the 3rd respondent factory. On a request made by the 2nd respondent-union, the 1st respondent-Deputy Commissioner of Labour having proposed to conduct verification elections to determine the majority union in the 3rd respondent company, called upon the petitioner- union as well as the 2nd respondent-union to produce the records in the general meeting held on 09.06.2009. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted its records and requested the first respondent to include the casual employees of the factory numbering 156 also in the verification process on par with the permanent workers. However, the 1st respondent by his proceedings dated 09.06.2009 while rejecting the petitioner’s request on the ground that the 156 casual workers were not regularized as on 01.09.2008 fixed the election date as 27.06.2009. Aggrieved by the said action of the 1st respondent, the present writ petition is filed. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-union. Where as the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the action of the 1st respondent in excluding the casual workers of the 3rd respondent factory is arbitrary and illegal, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contended that the writ petition itself is not maintainable since the code of discipline is not a statute and the impugned proceedings dated 09.06.2009 cannot be held to be in violation of any statute. It is not in dispute that the verification process by way of secret ballot if necessary has been taken up for the purpose of deciding the majority union in accordance with the code of discipline. The question whether the casual workers who are engaged to meet the exigencies of the work are entitled to vote for the election proposed for deciding the majority union was considered by this Court in PANYAM CEMENTS EMPLOYEES UNION AFFILIATED TO INTUC, KURNOOL DISTRICT vs. COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR, HYDERABAD[1] and after considering the relevant statutory provisions it was held as under: “READING the definitions of ‘trade union’ and ‘trade dispute’ it must be held that any dispute inter alia between the employer and workmen connected with the employment or non- employment, terms of employment or conditions of labour of any person would b a trade dispute and the term workman includes all persons employed in the trade or industry.” It was also held by this Court that a person who is employed even for a day is workman for the purpose of industrial law and no management can refuse the benefits allowed under law and the Constitution. Hence the 1st respondent was not justified in excluding the casual workers. Moreover, the code of discipline specifically provides that the membership would be only of those who had paid their subscriptions for at least three months during the period of six months immediately preceding the reckoning. Nothing could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents to show that the membership of the union has been prohibited to the casual workers. In the circumstances, the 1st respondent is bound to consider the request of the petitioner for inclusion of the casual workers also in the verification process in terms of the criteria for recognition of unions specified in the code of discipline. There is no basis to exclude the casual workers from the verification process merely on the ground that their services were not regularized. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to verify the membership of the casual employees also provided they satisfy the criteria prescribed under the code of discipline. Such verification for the casual employees as per the muster rolls furnished by the 3rd respondent company shall be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, the election process held on 27.06.2009 shall be finalized and the result thereof shall be declared. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J Dated: 06-07-2009 KLP [1] 2O04 (2) ALT 122