IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2010 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 15196 of 2010(Y) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- TITANIUM PRODUCTION DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE'S UNION (UTUC (B)) REG.NO.278/78, KOCHUVELI, TITANIUM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-21, REPRESENTED BY GENERAL SECRETARY, G.RADHAKRISHNAN. BY ADV. SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR, SMT.P.LISSY JOSE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LABOUR AND REHABILITATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. TRAVANCORE TITANIUM PRODUCTS LTD., TITANIUM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-21, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3. TITANIUM GENERAL LABOUR UNION (CITU) JAWAHAR SMARAKA MANDIRAM, TITANIUM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-21, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY. 4. TITANIUM PRODUCTS LABOUR UNION (INTUC), KUNNUPURAM, NEAR AYURVEDA COLLEGE, VANCHIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY. 5. TITANIUM WORKERS UNION (AITUC) AITUC OFFICE, KOCHUVELI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-21, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY. W.P.(C). NO.15196/2010-Y: 6. TITANIUM PRODUCTS EMPLYEES UNON (UTUC), SREEKANDAN NAIR MEMORIAL HALL, CHAKKA, NEAR ITI, BEACH P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY. 7. TITANIUM EMPLOYEES ORGANIZATION (STU) TITANIUM COMPANY, TITANIUM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-21, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY. 8. TITANIUM EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATIN (BMS), TITANIUM COMPANY, TITANIUM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-21, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY. R2 TO R8 BY SRI. K. ANAND, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/05/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.15196 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a registered trade union of workers of the Travancore Titanium Products Ltd., Thiruvananthapuram. They have filed this Writ Petition complaining of inaction on the part of the second respondent company in not conducting a referendum as directed by this Court in Ext.P1 judgment. In Ext.P1 judgment, this Court has issued the following directions. “Under the circumstances mentioned above, there shall be a direction to the second respondent to conduct a referendum to ascertain the membership of all the unions for the purpose of recognition subject to the following conditions: I. Following the criteria and order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court marked as Exts.P1 and P2 respectively in O.P.No.9987/1994, parties on both sides agree to recognize the union, who secure at least 20% of the total number of members of the workers; II. Recognition once granted, shall enure for a period of five years from the date of recognition; III. Such unions who do not secure 20% of the total number of members shall be de- recognised. Subject to the above directions, the original petition is disposed of.” wpc No.15196/2010 2 2. According to the counsel for the petitioner, though it has been ordered in Ext.P1 that recognition once granted shall enure for a period of 5 years, the period has subsequently reduced to three years as per Ext.P2 order in Review Petition No.269/1994 that was filed seeking to review Ext.P1. Therefore, according to the counsel, the recognition once granted to a Union would lapse on the expiry of three years. Consequently, all the unions including the petitioner are entitled to participate in the negotiations with the management. Therefore, they have sought for appropriate directions permitting them to participate in such negotiations. 3. Adv.K.Anand appears for the second respondent. The learned Senior Government Pleader appears for the first respondent. In the nature of the relief that I am proposing to grant in this Writ Petition, I do not think it necessary to issue notice to the other respondents. 4. According to the counsel for the second respondent, the three year period after the last referendum has expired only on 12.4.2010. Not even two months have elapsed since the said date. Immediately on the expiry of the period of three years, the second wpc No.15196/2010 3 respondent has issued a letter to the first respondent for the issue of necessary proceedings appointing a Returning Officer as well as an Observer for conducting a fresh referendum. The matter is under the consideration of the Government. Therefore, since the complaint of the petitioner has already been attended to, there are no grounds for granting any of the reliefs that are sought for in the Writ Petition. 5. According to the counsel for the petitioner, since the three years period stipulated by this Court has already expired, all the Unions who are arrayed as respondents 3 to 8 are unions who have no recognition. Therefore, there is no justification for involving only respondents 3 to 8 in the negotiations with the management. The petitioner union is also entitled to take part in such negotiations. 6. In view of the fact that the question of conducting a fresh referendum is already under consideration of the first respondent, I do not think there is any justification for issuing any direction at this stage. Though the period of three years stipulated by this Court has expired only on 12.4.2010, I notice that steps are being taken with promptitude to conduct the next referendum. There can wpc No.15196/2010 4 be no doubt that a referendum once granted shall continue until it is taken away by a fresh referendum. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that respondents 3 to 8 unions have been divested of the recognition that they had obtained at the last referendum is without substance. The petitioner would have to await the grant of recognition at the fresh referendum that is to be conducted. Suffice it to direct at present that proceedings for conducting the same shall be completed without further delay. 7. In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to take appropriate action on the request of the second respondent to appoint a Returning Officer and an Observer for the purpose of conducting a referendum, within a reasonable time. Action as indicted above shall be taken expeditiously. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/