IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2009 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 30463 of 2009(C) -------------------------- 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. BY ADV. SRI.RAJEEV V.KURUP SRI.ALEX.M.SCARIA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD., KANJIKKUZHY, KOTTAYAM-4, REPRESENTED 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 MARKOSE, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.30463 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. The petitioners have approached this court on an earlier occasion voicing the same grievance. A referendum is being conducted in the 1st respondent Corporation in order to recognise the trade unions. Petitioners are two employees working in a particular division in one of the estates within one unit (group) of the 1st respondent Corporation. With respect to counting of votes casted in the referendum, the petitioners are seeking shuffling of ballots of different Booths under different divisions together, on a unit wise (group wise) basis. Since Ext.P4 request made in this regard was not considered, the petitioners have approached this court, and in Ext.P5 judgment this court directed the 2nd respondent, who is the Returning Officer to consider petitioners' grievance and to take a decision, taking note of the observations made therein. In Ext.P5 judgment this court observed as follows:- “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 W.P.(C).30463/09-C 2 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 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.” 2. Ext.P6 is the order issued by the 2nd respondent in compliance with the directions contained in Ext.P5 judgment. Without mentioning any particular reason as to why the request shall not be acceded to, it is observed that as per the procedure followed hitherto the votes casted in different Booths will be counted separately. But it is further stated that since there are more than one Booth in certain divisions within the Kalady group (unit), votes will be counted on division wise after shuffling votes from different Booths within the division. 3. According to the petitioner the 2nd respondent has not taken note of the observations made by this court in Ext.P5 judgment. Further it is contended that no reason is stated in Ext.P6 as to why the request for shuffling of votes on unit wise, could not be permitted. The counsel appearing for respondents submitted that the modalities for conduct of referendum is being formulated on the basis of discussions held and settlements W.P.(C).30463/09-C 3 arrived between the management and the trade unions. No trade union has raised any protest against the system of counting of votes hitherto followed, nor with respect to the system declared to be adopted for the referendum proposed, is the contention. 4. Since the conduct of referendum is a matter coming within the administrative exigencies of the 1st respondent Corporation and since it is not an election conducted as per the provisions in any particular statute, it cannot be said that the 2nd respondent had violated any Rules or procedures, by taking a decision to conduct counting of the votes in a particular manner. However, it is noticed that the observations made in Ext.P5 judgment concerned with the grievances expressed by the petitioners, have not been considered by the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent has not stated any reason for not permitting such a request. The 1st respondent is a Corporation owned by Government. The 2nd respondent while acting on behalf of the Government is expected to show fairness and transparency in all its dealings. The request if allowed will only improve maintenance of secrecy in voting and I do not find that any prejudice will be caused to the respondents or to the trade unions by allowing such a prayer. 5. Under the above circumstances the 2nd respondent is W.P.(C).30463/09-C 4 directed to count the votes casted in the referendum at different Booths within a single estate of a particular division, together by shuffling of the ballots. The writ petition is disposed of with the above observations. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb