r^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISOARH AT BILaSPUR W.P.IC.J No. 3TS/2008 p^TITIONER National Federation of Telecom Einployees w Versus RESPONDBKT'S Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltmited and ofhers Order post for °\-4-2008 Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge mOH COURT OP CHHATTISGARH AT BIL^sFUR PBTITIONBR W.P.(C.? No. 375/2008 National Federation of Telecom Employses (BSNL) Chhattisgarh Circle (R.No. 4906) through T.R.C. Rao, District Secretai-5.' of N.P.T.E. (B.S.N.L.) BilaspuT (CG) Secondary Switehing Area Registered Office at D/284 Tagore Nagar, Raipur ('CG'l yersus RJTOPONDBNTS 1. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, through Chief M&iaging Director, A- 601, Statesman House, Barakhambha Road, New Dejhi 2. Chief General Manager Telecom (CG 3. Telecom Circle), Bharat Sanctsar Nigain Limited, Near Secretariat G.E. Road, Raipur (CO) General Manager Telephone Dcpartmcnt (Bilaspi.sr Tclccom District) Bharat Sanchar N^am Lunited, Link Road, City Telephone Exchange, Bilaspur (CG) 4. Divisional Engineer (Admmistration) Qeneral Manager Telephone Department, Bilaspur, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Lunited, Link Road, City Telephone Exchange, Bilaspur (CG) ORDE R oj -4-2008 Dhireadra Mishra. J. Shri Prateek Sharma, Advocate for fhe petitioner. Shri V.C.Ottalwar vvifh Sbri Rajeev Shrivastava, Advocates for the respondents. With the consent of the parttes, the niatter was heard finaUy. 2. Petitioner union ('for brevity, NF'TE') by this petition lUiaer Articte 22b ot the Consntution ot Indla, nas prayed tbr following reliefs:- 7.1 To call the enttre records of the case; 7.2 To issue a writ of certiorari thereby quashing the impugned order dated 27-12-2007 and att consequential orders and actions; 7.3 To issue a wnt ot mandamus thereby olirecting tne respondent fio. d to immediately open and •^^w^^*^- ^»=t ZSG3!iHBa^B£^?,i ^•'i'.<. .:: - •; ; .gfy^. ^' '••.. ^ s,^-.-^- '°»>>. 'te-.-"/" hand over the oftice of the petitioner union to fhe petitioner union; and 7.4 Any other relief which may deem fit in fhe given facts and drciimstances of the case including the cost of the petition. 3. The NFTE has fued this petition with averment that fhe petitioner is a registered union. On request of the petitioner herein, the Sub Divisional Er^ineer (Admmistrationi allotted an accommodation for union office vide Annexure P-2. The above accommodation was used for office purpose till December, 2002 without any interruption. 4. In tfae first verification, fhe NFTE became representative union of non-executive empioyees of respondent No. 1 for a period of two years as fhev secured inaiority of votes and accordmgly the iinion was entiUed for o£5ce accommodation apart froni other facilities. However, the acconimodation was not provided in view of the fact that the petitioner was atoeady allotted accomiaodation facilit^r. 5. In fhe second verification held ia Deceinber, 2004, tfae BSNLEU becasie the representative i.imon recognized by BSKL and NFTE was directed to hand over the accoinmodation facility to the new representative union. T'he petitioner chaUer^ed the above direction by filing a writ petition whereupon fhe respondent No. 1 graated accommodation facility to the new representative union vide order dated 6-12-2004 Annexure P-3. m the 3ri verification also, BSNLEU was declared m^ority representathre union of non-executive employees, however, fhe NF'TE got majority votes in the C.G. circle. 6. The Distoict Secretary of the NFTE, as directed by fhe m.anageinent, subinitted original aUotment order dated 11-11- 99 to establish fhat the accoimnodation was aMotted to fhe union even before the first verification. The General Manager, ^ ,s respondent No. 3 on 30-11-97 recommended for aUowing the NFTE to retaia fhe accomniodauon. However, fhe accommodation allotted to the petitioner was locked and seaied without canceUation of atlotnient and it was aileged that a forsed document of altotment has been produced by the union. An explanation was called from T.R.C. Rao for producing the foi^ed docum.ent. In repfy to the show cause notice, T.R.C. Rao denied the chai^es and reiterated fhat the document of allotment is genuine, however till date, the union office is locked and sealed resulting in stoppage of activities of the uruon. 7. The respondents m. tfaeir retum, have taken a prelimtnaiy objection fhat fhe petition is not maintainable firsuy on the ground that the petitioner has sought quashment of memorandum dated 27-12-2007 issued to T.R.C. Rao and the petitioner has no locus standi to chaUenge the above memorandum. The petition is also liable for dismissal as fhe sam.e has been filed tsy a registered union through its Distiict Secretary, however there is no resolution of fhe NFTE aufhorizing T.R.C. Rao to file this petition nor there is anv docum.ent annexed with the petition to show that T.R.C. Rao is District Secretary ofthe union. 8. After second inembership verification, the corporation office issued fheorder oftransfer offacilities on 6th December, 2004 from the NPTE to the BSNLEU (Annexiu-e R-l). A letter dated 13-12-2004 was also issued to S.N. Chilainwar, Circle Secretaiy of fhe NFTE for fhe above purpose (Annexuu'e R-2). T.R.C. Rao, the then District Secretary of the union was also called upon to hand over the tmion office to the new representative union (Annexure R-3). The NFTE filed a Wnt Petition No. 4837/2004 wherein iaterim order was passed to the effect that if the petitioner vacates the room, fhe said room will not be aUotted to anv oreanization till decision is taken by the CMD on the representation of me petitioner t •• -^T Sss-^ - >'mwll*<»*«*K'iitti!ua.aa»si i ^^. /^:. ^ pending consideration before tfae CMD. The representation submitted bv fhe NFTE for ofiice accominodation was rejected on 12-1-2005 (AimexuTe R-5). 9. The NF'TE, after loosir^ fhe elecdon at ali India level, fUed writ petitions before various High Courts lor simUar reUefs. These writ petitions were dismissed. After dismissal of writ petitions, the W.P. No. 4837/2004 filed by the NPTE was also dismissed as wifhdrawn vide Ann^xure R-6. 10. The respondents have also submitted a copy of the judgment dated 19m September, 2005 passed in W.P. (C) No. 54-55 of 2005 (National Federation of Telecom Emplwees (NFTE) and others -v- Bhartiya Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL) and anotfaer. 11. Undisputed lacts are that Bhartiya Sanchar Nigam Ltd. I'BSNL') came into existence on 1st October, 2000. A Code of Discipline was prepared and sigied. In the first verification, as per the Code of Discipline, NFTE was reeognized as representative union for non-executive employees in BSNL for a period of two years from 4-12-2002; no accommodation facility was provided to the petitioner as the petitioner was atreadv haviag accommodation facility; in the second verification, fhe BSNL eniployees union (BSNLEU) was recognized as representative union whereupon the NFTE was directed to hand over its accoiamodation facilitv to BSNLEU; the NFTE filed W.P. No. 4837/2004 against the above du'ection and interun order dated 24-12-2004 was passed. Recording fhe submission of the counsel for BSNL that the petitioner has already made representation before CMD, New Delhi which is pending consideration, it was directed tfaat if fhe petitioner vacates the room., then the said room wiU not ailotted to any organization till the decision is taken by fhe CMD, New Delhi. The above petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 26«hJuly, 2007. _„- ifflBlit :^. ?- 12. From fhe averments of fhe respective parties and fhe documents avaiiable on record, it is clear fhat:- (i) An ag-eement was reached between fhe participating uiiions includme NFTE and BSNLEU that majority representative union is to be elected as per agreed Code of Discipline; (ii) Only one iinion was to be granted rec^nition in BSNL which secures majority votes; (iii) 'The unions including the NFTE and BSNLEU who participated m the inembership verification, gave undertaking that they shall abide by the Code of Discipline. BSNL decided to extend facilities to fee recognized representative urrion after first membership verification including faciiity of office accommodation, however this facility was not extended to the ofher union after first verification. After second verification when BSNLEU seciired majority votes and was recognized as representative union, NFTE was directed to hand over fhe office accomraodation aUotted to it forthwith. The NFT'E fued a writ petition against fhe aboive direction, however an interim order was passed by this Court to the effect fhat m case the NFTE vacates fhe accommodation and its possession, the same shall not be allowed to any ofher organization till the representation submitted by NFTE to CMD of BSNL is decided. (iv) The representation of NFT'E was rejected by Annexure R-5 which was duly commuiiicated to tfae NFTE. (v| Writ petition No. 4837/2004 of NFTE was dismissed as wifhdrawn on 26m Juty, 2007 (Annexure R-6). (vi) The writ petitions for sumlar reUef fUed by the NPTE in DeUii High Court as also in the Madias High Court have been dismissed. ^.s^.^.,11.^:^^ 13. Unfortiinately, the petitioner has not disclosed the aforesaid relevant and material facts in fhe petition. Leamed counsel for the petitioner could not show any le^l right to continue with the possession of the office accomiaodation even after loosing the character of representative union. 14. In these ciTCumstances, I ain of the opmion that fhe petitioner is not entitled for any discretionary reUef, as prayed for in the instant petition. 15. The petition is accordu^ disifiissed. lfc>. NO oraers as to costs. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge