IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 19..04..2005 C O R A M The Honourable Mrs. Justice PRABHA SRIDEVAN W.P. Nos.20038 of 2001, 5929, 7383 and 40284 of 2002 W.P.M.P. NOS. 31964 OF 2001, 29545 OF 2001, 8212 OF 2002, 10228 OF 200 & 1645 OF 2004 W.V.M.P. NO. 1153 OF 2002 Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees' Federation (AITUC), rep. by its General Secretary J. Lakshmanan, 2, Pallavan Salai, Kali Arangam Complex, .. Petitioner in Chennai-2. W.P.20038 of 2001 Labour Progressive Federation, rep. by its General Secretary M. Shanmugam, 10, Thiagaraya Street, .. Petitioner in T. Nagar, Chennai-17. W.P.5929 of 2002 Tamil Nadu Arasu Pokkuvarathu Uzhiyar Sammelanam (CITU) (Regd. No.2468/MDS), rep. by its General Secretary, .. Petitioner in 52, Cooks Road, Chennai-12. W.P.7383 of 2002 T. Thirumalaisamy, General Secretary, Tamil Nadu Government Transport Corporation Staff Federation (601/MDU), TNSTC HQ Complex, .. Petitioner in Bye Pass Road, Madurai-625 010. W.P.40284 of 2002 Versus 1. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, Transport Department, .. Respondent in Fort St. George, W.Ps.20038 of 2001 & Chennai-9. R1 in W.P 7383 of 2002 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Commissioner & Secretary, Transport Department, Fort St. George, .. 1st Respondent in Chennai-9. W.P.5929 of 2002 3. The Chairman, State Transport Corporations, (Secretary to Government, Transport Department), .. 1st Respondent in Fort St. George, Chennai-9. W.P.40284 of 2002 4. Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Labour Department, .. 2nd Respondent in Fort St. George, Chennai-9. W.P.5929 of 2002 5. The Commissioner of Labour, .. 3rd Respondent in Labour Commissioner's Office, W.Ps.5929 of 2002 Tamil Nadu Labour Welfare Board and 2nd Respondent Building, D.M.S. Complex, in W.Ps.7383 & Teynampet, Chennai-6. 40284 of 2002 6. Tamil Nadu Road Transport Workers'} HMS Federation 22/2, } Trichy Road, Singanallur, } Coimbatore. } } 7. Tamil Nadu Government Transport } Workers' Union (CITU), } 52, Cooks Road, } Chennai-12. } } 8. Tamil Nadu AITUC State Transport } Workers' Sammelanam, } Pallavan Salai, Chennai-2. } } 9. Anna Thozir Sanga Peravai, } Royapettah, Chennai-14. } } 10.Tamil Manila Trade Union } Congress (TMTUC) } (Regd. No.2507/MDS), rep. by } its President N. Nanjappan, } Sathyamoorthy Bhavan, } 40, Thiru.Vi.Ka. Road, } Chennai-2. } } https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 11.Marumalarchi Thozhilalar Munnani, } "Thayagam", 141, Rukmani } Lakshmipathy Road, Egmore, } Chennai-8, rep. by its } General Secretary, Transport }.. R-4 to R-9 in Wing Mr. P. Arunagiri. } W.P.5929 of 2002 (R-8 & R-9 in W.P.5929/2002 } impleaded vide orders passed in } WPMP.16870/2002 dt.17.4.2002 & } WPMP.50036/2002 dt.9.2.2005) } 12.Metropolitan Transport Corporation} (Chennai) Ltd., rep. by its } Managing Director, Pallavan Salai,} Chennai-2. } } 13.Tamil Nadu State Transport } Corporation Ltd. (TNSTC), rep. by } its Managing Director, } Villupuram Division, } Villupuram-605 602. } } 14.Tamil Nadu State Transport } Corporation Ltd. (TNSTC), rep. by } its Managing Director, } Kanchipuram Division, } 1/2, Nadu Street, Shekpet, } Kanchipuram-631 501. } } 15.Tamil Nadu State Transport } Corporation Ltd. (TNSTC), rep. by } its Managing Director, } Vellore Division, } 9, Rangapuram, } Vellore-632 009. } } 16.Tamil Nadu State Transport } Corporation Ltd. (TNSTC), rep. by } its Managing Director, } Tiruchi Division, } Periamilaguparai, } Tiruchi-620 001. } } 17.Tamil Nadu State Transport } Corporation Ltd. (TNSTC), rep. by } its Managing Director, } Kumbakonam Division, } https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Railway Station New Road, } Kumbakonam-612 001. } } 18.Tamil Nadu State Transport } Corporation Ltd. (TNSTC), rep. by } its Managing Director, } Pudukottai Division, } 51/1, Pillai Thanneer Pandal, } Thirumayam Road, } Pudukottai-622 001. } } 19.Tamil Nadu State Transport } Corporation Ltd. (TNSTC), rep. by } its Managing Director, } Virudhunagar Division, } Virudhunagar. } } 20.Tamil Nadu State Transport } Corporation Ltd. (TNSTC), rep. by } its Managing Director, } Dindigul Division, } Bye-Pass Road, } Dindigul-624 004. } } } 21.Tamil Nadu State Transport } Corporation Ltd. (TNSTC), rep. by } its Managing Director, } Karaikudi Division, } Maruthupathi Mangiri Road, } Karaikudi-630 307. } } 22.Tamil Nadu State Transport } Corporation Ltd. (TNSTC), rep. by } its Managing Director, } Madurai Division, } Bye-Pass Road, } Madurai-625 010. } } 23.Tamil Nadu State Transport } Corporation Ltd. (TNSTC), rep. by } its Managing Director, } Tirunelveli Division, } 2, Thiruvananthapuram Road, } Vannarapettai, } Tirunelveli-627 003. } } 24.Tamil Nadu State Transport } Corporation Ltd. (TNSTC), rep. by } https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ its Managing Director, } Nagercoil Division, } Nesamoni Nagar, Rani Thottam, } Nagercoil-629 001. } } 25.Tamil Nadu State Transport } Corporation Ltd. (TNSTC), rep. by } its Managing Director, } Coimbatore Division, } 37, Mettupalayam Road, } Coimbatore-641 043. } } 26.Tamil Nadu State Transport } Corporation Ltd. (TNSTC), rep. by } its Managing Director, } Salem Division, } 12, Ramakrishna Salai, } Salem-636 007. } } 27.Tamil Nadu State Transport } Corporation Ltd. (TNSTC), rep. by } its Managing Director, } Dharmapuri Division, } Bharathipuram, Salem Road, } Dharmapuri-636 705. } } 28.Tamil Nadu State Transport } Corporation Ltd. (TNSTC), rep. by } its Managing Director, } Erode Division, } Chennimalai Road, } Erode-638 001. } } 29.State Express Transport } Corporation Ltd. (TNSTC), rep. by } its Managing Director, } Pallavan Salai, Chennai-2. } } 30.Anna Thozhir Sanga Peravai (ATP), } rep. by its General Secretary, } Royapettah, Chennai-14. } } 31.Labour Progressive Federation, } rep. by its General Secretary, } North Usman Road, } T. Nagar, Chennai-17. } } 32.Tamil Nadu Govt. Transport } Corporation Staff Federation, } https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ rep. by its Secretary, } Plot No.288, Transport Nagar, } Pappan Odai Postal Training }.. R-3 to R-23 in Centre, Madurai-22. } W.P.7383 of 2002 - - - - - PRAYER : Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the reliefs as stated within. - - - - - For Petitioner in } W.P.20038 of 2001 } Mr. K. Vasudevan For Petitioner in } Mr. R. Viduthalai W.P.5929 of 2002 } For Petitioner in } Mr. N.G.R. Prasad for W.P.7383 of 2002 } M/s. Row & Reddy For Petitioner in } W.P.40284 of 2002 } Mr. M.M. Sundaresh For Respondents : Mr. N.R. Chandran, Advocate General, assisted by Mr. R. Chandrasekaran, Government Advocate and Mr. P.P. Shanmughasundaram, Government Advocate (Respondent in W.P.20038/2001; RR-1 to 3 in W.P.5929/2002; RR-1 to 4, 6, 10, 13, 14, 17 and 20 in W.P.7383/2002; RR-1 & 2 in W.P.40284/2002) Mr. C. Manohar (R-4) – in W.P.5929/2002 Mr.V. Ramajagadeesan for R7 in W.P.5929/02 Mr. V.R. Kamalanathan (RR-5, 7, 9 & 18) Mr. R. Parthiban (R-8); Mr. Jayaraman (R9 & R-12); Mr. L.G. Sahadevan (R-15); Mr. G. Muniratnam (R-16); Mr. V.V. Krishnan R-18 Mr. C.P. Pattabiram (R-21) - in W.P.7383/2002 - - - - - https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E R The above four writ petitions have been filed for the followi reliefs : W.P. No.20038 of 2001 – To issue a writ of mandamus directing t respondent to invite the petitioner Federation to participate in t Current Wage Settlement Negotiation and other negotiations and gi sufficient opportunity to express their views. W.P. No.5929 of 2002 – To issue a writ of mandamus directi respondents 1 to 3 to forbear from inviting any other trade unio excepting the recognised collective bargaining agents elected accordance with the order passed by the Division Bench of the Madr High Court in Writ Appeal No.1205 of 1998 dated 10.11.1998 for all t collective bargaining negotiations relating to the employees of t Transport Undertakings employed under the control of the seco respondent. W.P. No.7383 of 2002 – To issue a writ of mandamus directi respondents 1 to 20 to conduct elections through secret ballot recognise Trade Unions to represent the workers employed in Sta Transport Corporations in the State of Tamil Nadu and negotiate a effect settlements regarding their service conditions only with t recognised Trade Unions. W.P. No.40284 of 2002 – To issue a writ of certiorarified mandam calling for the records of the first respondent culminated in and by h Proceedings No.6309/C1/2002-6 dated 24.7.2002, quash the same a consequently directing the respondents to initiate talks on wa revisions and other issues with the elected four Unions insofar as t employees of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporations are concern and to take all steps to reach an amicable settlement under Section (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. N.G.R. Pras (W.P. No.7383 of 2002), Mr. R. Viduthalai (W.P. No.5929 of 2002) and M M.M. Sundresh (W.P. No.40284 of 2002) submitted that the responden cannot invite all the Federations/Unions for talks without holding secret ballot as directed by the Supreme Court in FOOD CORPORATION INDIA STAFF UNION VS. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA [1995 (2) L.L.J. 272 A.I.R. 1995 S.C. 1344], and by the Division Bench of our High Court the judgment in Writ Appeal Nos.1205 of 1998 etc. reported in 1991 ( L.L.N. 238 [THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPO CORPORATION & OTHERS VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU & OTHERS]. According them, the purpose of collective bargaining will be lost if t management does not talk with the representative Unions alon According to them, if all the Unions are allowed to participate in t https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ talks, it would dilute the spirit of collective bargaining. It further submitted that earlier, in respect of the same Transpo Corporation workers who are the petitioners in these cases, secr ballot was directed to be conducted in the writ appeal cited above. settlement was arrived at which was in force till 31.8.2001. Accordi to the learned counsel, though the period of settlement has come to end, the settlement will be deemed to be in force until a fre settlement is entered into. Therefore, the respondent Corporation bound to invite only those Unions who are elected after a secret ball is conducted; or, they should invite only those Unions who had be elected earlier and had participated in the ballot, which culminated the 2001 settlement. Reliance was placed on the following decisions : 1981 (1) L.L.J. 1 [L.I.C. VS. D.J. BAHADUR] 1970 (1) L.L.J. 83 [SOUTHERN RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION VS. SOUTHERN RAILWAY] 2000 (1) S.C.C. 371 [NATIONAL ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN] W.P. NO.8721 OF 1998 DATED 4.2.1999 [CHENNAI BHARAT ELECTRONICS EMPLOYEES UNION VS. THE DIRECTOR, BHARAT ELECTRONICS LTD.] W.P. NO.6415 OF 1991 DATED 2.7.1992 [D. VELLATHURAI VS. LABOUR COMMISSIONER & OTHERS] W.P. NOS.2551 OF 1999 ETC. DATED 12.2.2001 [N.L.C. MAZDOOR SANGH VS. NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPORATIONs LTD.] 3. Learned Advocate General appearing for the Transpo Corporation submitted that the decision in both the Food Corporation India case and the writ appeal referred to above did not lay down as legal principle that the management is bound to invite only t representative Union for settlement talks; both of them were decisio born out of consensus. The learned Advocate General also pointed o that there is no State law similar to the Maharashtra Recognition Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act. Therefor when a trade union comes into existence as per the provisions of t Trade Union Act, 1926, the said Union cannot be prevented fr representing its workers before the management and referred to Secti 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Learned Advocate General al submitted that in the present case, the subsequent events must be tak note of. After the writ petitions were filed, strike notices und Section 22(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act were issued by t following Trade Unions on the following dates respectively : 16.3.2002 - Strike Notice by A.I.T.U.C. 18.3.2002 – Strike Notice by C.I.T.U. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 18.3.2002 - Strike Notice by L.P.F. 20.3.2002 - Strike Notice by M.L.F. (M.D.M.K.) 3.4.2002 - Strike Notice by P.M.K. Therefore, as per Section 20, conciliation proceedings are deemed have commenced. The Conciliation Officer invited the respective Unio for talks and they also participated. Learned Advocate General referr to the correspondence between by the trade unions and t Commissioner/Joint Commissioner (Conciliation). Having agreed to tal being conducted by the Joint Commissioner with all the Unions, it is n not open to the Unions to resile from that position and insist on reli being granted on the basis of the writ prayers. The learned Advoca General submitted that there is no inherent right in the petitioners insist that they alone should be called for talks. 4. Mr. K. Vasudevan, learned counsel appearing for one of t smaller Unions submitted that the petitioner in W.P. No.20038 of 20 had a right to be invited for talks. 5. The following paragraphs in the judgment of the Supreme Cou in the Food Corporation of India case are relevant : "But when in an establishment, be it an industry or an undertaking, there are more than one registered trade unions, the question as to with whom the employer should negotiate or enter into bargaining assumes importance, because if the trade union claiming this right be one which has as its members minority of the workmen/employees, the settlement, even if any arrived between the employers and such a union, may not be acceptable to the majority and may not result in industrial peace. In such a situation with whom the employer should bargain, or to put it differently who should be the sole bargaining agent, has been a matter of discussion and some dispute. The 'check off system' which once prevailed in this domain has lost its appeals; and so, efforts are on to find out which other system can foot the bill. The method of secret ballot is being gradually accepted. All concerned would, however, like to see that this method is so adapted and adjusted that it reflects the correct position as regards membership of the different trade unions operating in one and the same industry, establishment or undertaking. In the appeal at hand, the Food Corporation of India (FCI) and the unions representing the workmen have agreed to follow the "secret ballot system" for assessing the representative character of the trade unions. We have, however, been called upon to lay down as to how the method of secret ballot should be tailored to yield the correct result." In the National Engineering Industries Ltd. case, the Supreme Cou observed as follows : https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "Where pursuant to identical charters of demands made by several unions, the management and a representative union reached a conciliation settlement to be operative immediately after the expiry of the previous settlement, held, the new settlement became binding on all workmen of the establishment including those belonging to a dissenting minority union – Principle of collective bargaining underlying the Act for resolving industrial disputes and maintaining peace, taken note of – Hence, during the existence of such a settlement, a dissenting minority union, which was not eligible for registration as a representative union, held, was not entitled to raise an industrial dispute in respect of the demands left out in the new settlement." 6. In Writ Petition No.6415 of 1991 decided on 2.7.1992, t question was with regard to the election of the Office Bearers a Executive Members of Binny Beach Engineering Workers' Union. In t circumstances of that case, this Court held that election being democratic process for the functioning of the trade union, mandamus c be issued. That decision may not apply to this case. 7. In Writ Appeal No.1205 of 1999, by order dated 14.12.1998, Division Bench of this Court ordered secret ballot to be conducted so to decide who should represent the workers for arriving at a settleme and directed the respondent Corporation to issue a public notice up whomsoever concerned and intends to participate in the proceedings sin there were a large number of trade unions. The parties in this wr petition were the parties before the Division Bench, viz. the Manageme and the workers of the State Transport Corporation and on the next da of hearing, the Division Bench noted, "After considerable discussion the counsel agreed for a separate ballot being held on the basis of t Federation to represent the workers in the wage settleme negotiations." 8. There is no doubt that a settlement does not suffer "deat merely because of the notice issued under Section 19(2), the award, ev if it ceases to be operative qua award continues qua contract - vi 1981 (I) L.L.J. 1 [LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA VS. D. BAHADUR]. Therefore, even if the parties are at liberty to seek alteration of the contract, until altered the contract continues govern the relation between the parties in respect of the terms a conditions of service. But, merely because the terms of the settleme continue to operate until they are replaced, the Unions which we parties to the earlier settlement cannot insist that only they should invited by the respondent for talks. Though the writ petitione represented by learned counsel Mr. N.G.R. Prasad, Mr. R. Viduthalai a Mr. M.M. Sundaresh now contend that they alone should represent t workmen in the talks with the respondent Corporation, their stand aft the filing of the writ petitions appears to have been different. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 9. To the notice issued by the Commissioner of Labour for t conciliation proceedings after the strike notices were issued, a comm reply statement was filed by the respondent Corporation. At that tim the following writ petitions were pending : W.P. No.5929 of 2002 filed by L.P.F. W.P. No.7383 of 2002 filed by C.I.T.U. W.P. No.20473 of 2001 filed by T.M.T.U.C. W.P. No.20038 of 2001 filed by A.I.T.U.C. W.P. No.20693 of 2001 filed by I.N.T.U.C. W.P. No.31463 of 2002 in W.P. No.5929 of 2002 filed by M.L.F. W.P. No.20693 of 2001 filed by H.M.S. The petitioners sent letters to the Commissioner of Labour as detail below : Date Union Contents 14.6.2004 Marumalarchi Thozhilalar The General Secretary Munnani of this Union has stated that when there is no stay by the High - Court ("cah;ePjpkd;wdk; jil cj;jput[ VJk; tH';fhj epiyapy; "), there is no prohibition restraining respondent from conducting talks with the workmen and that they would extend their full co-operation ("vkJ mikg;g[ KG xj;JiHg;g[ mspf;Fbkd bjhptpj;Jf; bfhs;fpnwhk;"). 14.6.2004 Thozhilalar Munnetra In this, it is stated Sanga Peravai that there is no question of withdrawing the writ petitions when - no stay has been granted by this Court with the request to the Management to have direct talks with the Unions - ("vdnt Cjpa cah;t[ Fwpj;J eph;thfk;. bjhHpw;r';f';fSld; neuo ngr;R thh;j;ijapid bjhlh;e;jpl Mtd bra;jpLkhW nfl;Lf; bfhs;fpnwhk; "). 14.6.2004 Tamil Nadu Government In this, it is stated Transport Corporations that no stay has been Staff Federation granted in any case with regard to the conciliation talks and - that immediately steps should be taken to commence conciliation talks - ("vdnt jh';fs; j';fs; https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ fojj;jpy; muR rhh;gpy; nfl;Lf; bfhs;Sk; ntz;Lnfhis Vw;gjw;F Kd v';fsJ fPH;fz;l fUj;Jf;fis ghprPyid bra;a nfl;Lf; bfhs;fpnwhk;/ 1) xg;ge;jk; Koe;j 31?08?2001w;F kWjpdkhd 01 brg;/2001 Kjy; mKYf;F tUk; tifapy; xg;ge;j ngr;Rthh;j;ij Jtf;f ntz;Lk;/ 2) rhjhuz bjhHpw;jhth nghy; bjh/jh/ rl;l ruj;J 12(4)d; fPH; Kwptwpf;i vd;w epiy ,Uf;ff; TlhJ/ 3) muR brayh;. mikr;rh; kl;l ngr;Rthh;j;ij Jtf;fg;gl;L xg;ge;jk Vw;gl midj;J Kaw;rpfSk; vLf;fg;glntz;Lk;/ ,j;jifa xU rl;lg{h;tkhd jPh;t[f;F muR Kd;tUk; gl;rj;jpy; jh';fs v';fsJ tHf;if thg!; bgWtJ bjhlh;ghf fye;J KobtLf;f ,aYk vd ,jd;K:yjk; bjhptpj;Jf; bfhs;fpnwhk; ; "). 16.4.2004 Tamil Nadu Road In this, it is stated Transport Workers that W.P. No.20693 of 2001 has been withdrawn under the belief that - the respondent would invite all the Unions, including the HMS Federation, for talks - ("bjhHpyhsh;fSf;F tpiutpy; Cjpa xg;ge;jk; Vw;gLk; tifapy; jh';fs; HMS cl;gl midj;J khepy nguitfisa[k; clnd miHj;J ngRtPh;fs; vd;w ek;gpf;ifapd; mog;gilapYk; v';fspd; cah;ePjpkd;w tHf;if (20693-2001) jpUk;g bgw;Ws;nshk; vd;gij md;g[ld; bjhptpj;Jf;? bfhs;fpnwhk; "). 14.6.2004 Tamil Nadu Arasu In this, it is stated Pokkuvarathu Oozhiyar that no stay has been Sammelanam granted by any Court in any case and that if a date is fixed by the - respondent for conciliation, immediately they would withdraw the writ petition pending before the High Court - ("eph;thfk; ngr;Rthh;j;ijf;fhd xU njjpia eph;zapj;J v';fSf;F fojk; vGjpdhy; clnd v';fs; rk;nksdj;jpd; rhh;gpy; brd;id cah;ePjpkd;wj;jpy; cs;s ngr;Rthh;j;ij bjhlh;ghd tHf;ifj; jpUk;gg; bgw;Wf;bfhs;fpnwhk; vd;W ,jd; K:yk; bjhptpj;Jf;bfhs;fpnwhk; "). 18.6.2004 Indian National This Union has thanked Transport Workers the respondent for the Federation concrete steps and have assured the Government https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that no litigation would be pursued any longer – ("We request you to kindly inform the government, that regarding INTUC, it may remain assured that no litigation would be pursued any longer"). 22.6.2004 Tamil Nadu Arasu In this, it is stated Pokkuvarathu that if a letter is Kazhagangalin given intimating the Thozhilalar Sammelanam initiation of talks and guaranteeing the participation of the - AITUC Union, they would immediately withdraw the writ petition – ("Cjpa xg;ge;j ngr;Rthh;j;ijia Jtf;FtJ Fwpj;Jk;. Mjpy; V/I/o/a[/rp/ nghf;Ftuj;J bjhHpyhsh; rk;nksdj;ij g';nfw;f bra;tija[k; cj;juthjg;gLj;Jk; gl;rj;jpy; muR-eph;thfk; v';fSf;F fojk; mDg;gpdhy; clnd brd;id cah;ePjpkd;wj;jpYs;s v';fsJ tHf;if jpUk;g bgw jahuhf cs;nshk; vd;gij bjhptpj;Jf; bfhs;fpnwhk; "). These letters were forwarded by the Commissioner of Labour to t respondent Management along with his letter dated 22.6.2004. It is se from this letter that only three Unions had not replied, viz. An Thozhilalar Peravai, Ambedkar Arasu Pokkuvarathu Thozhir Sanga Perava Pattali Thozhir Sanga Maiyam. These three Unions have not filed t writ petitions. The petitioners also warned the respondents that th there would be an agitation if the Government does not invite the Unio for talks. This is dated 5.11.2004, and the crucial words, which a extracted hereunder, indicate that the Government should invite t labour unions for talks : "muR CHpah; r';f';fSld; ngr;R thh;j;ij elj;jp mth;fspd; nghuhl;l fhyj;ij gzpf;fhykhf mwptpj;jijg; nghy. nghf;Ftuj;J. Efh;bghUs; thzpgf; fHf bjhHpyhsh;fSf;Fk; 2001 nghuhl;l fhyj;ijg; gzpf;fhykhf mwptpj;jpl bjhHpw;r';f';fis miHj;J nghrpl Kd;tuntz;Lbkd jkpHf muir ,k;khehL typa[Wj;JfpwJ." Therefore, at this stage, all that the petitioners were urging for that the respondent Corporation should initiate talks with all t Workers' Unions. No demand was made by any of them that they alo should be called for the talks. 10. In 1984 (Supp.) S.C.C. 663 [BALMER LAWRIE WORKERS' UNION V BALMER LAWRIE & CO. LTD.], the Supreme Court held : "Multiplicity of political parties had its spill-over in multiplicity of trade unions seeking to represent workmen in an industrial undertaking or industry, as the case may be. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The fallout of the multiplicity of such unions was inter-union and intra-union rivalry which threatened the peaceful working of the industrial undertaking or the industry. Each union, as the unfortunate experience shows, tried to overreach the rival by making occasionally exorbitant and untenable demands". One of the strong objections raised to the Management's initiation talks with all the Unions is that it would dilute the spirit collective bargaining. In 1976 (2) S.C.C. 82 [ROHTAS INDUSTRIES LIMIT VS. ROHTAS INDUSTRIES STAFF UNION], the Supreme Court had an occasion deal with an agreement between the management and labour, in which t workmen were represented by two registered unions and two unregister unions which had a lesser following, so such agreements are possible a have been accepted. The interest of the workers should not be lost the heat of inter-union rivalry. The Unions should not lose sight the woods for the trees. In 1976 (4) S.C.C. 736 [HERBERTSONS LIMIT VS. WORKMEN], the Supreme Court commented about the disquieting featu of union rivalry whereby the significance of collective bargainin which is the forte of a union, is sought to be taken away. 11. In this case, the Management has invited all the Unions take part in the conciliation talks. It is clear from the paragrap extracted above that this is a decision which the Management is entitl to take. In these circumstances, the writ petitioner in W.P. No.7383 2002 cannot insist on the conduct of elections through secret ballot decide as to which Union should negotiate and effect settlemen especially when it has, by its letter dated 14.6.2004, as extract above, indicated that it would take part in the talks. Similarly, t writ petitioner in W.P. No.5929 of 2002 cannot insist on the responde Corporation being restrained from inviting any other trade union expe the recognised collective bargaining agents elected in accordance wi the order passed in the writ appeal referred to earlier. The