IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 3323 of 2009 Between: Orient Cements Workers Union, (Regd. No. E-280) Devapur, Kasipet Mandal, Adilabad District, represented by its President P.Venugopal Rao S/o.P. Mutyam Rao R/o.Mutyampally Village, Kasipet Mandal, Adilabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Commissioner of Labour, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 The Verification Officer/Returning Officer & Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Adilabad. 3 Joint Commissioner of Labour Andhra Pradesh, Warangal. 4 The Employees Union of Orient Cement, (Reg. No. E-1234) Devapur, Adilabad District, represented by its President. .....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 any appropriate Writ, Order or direction preferably a Writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the 1st respondent in not disposing of the representation of the Petitioner dt. 2-2-2009 and also action of the 1st Respondent in not suspending the letter No. G/1116/2008 dt. 29.11.2008, of the 2nd Respondent in the wake of minutes drawn by the 2nd Respondent on 30-1-2009 and also not appointing the Petitioner Union as bargaining agent as the 4th Respondent over stated for 8 months of their term not appointing adhoc body picking up from both the Subject Unions as illegal, arbitrary, unilateral, highhanded Contrary to the Code of discipline, equity and fair play and discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 1st respondent to forthwith conduct re-election and pending the same to suspend the letter No.G/1116/2008 dt. 29-11-2008 issued by the 2nd respondent by requesting the Management of Orient Cements, Devapur to entertain the Petitioner Union for negotiation, or in the alternative to appoint adhoc body by picking up from the Petitioner Union as well as the 4th Respondent Union. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.KARUNA SAGAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus declaring the inaction of the first respondent in disposing of the representation of the petitioner dated 02.02.2009 and also the action of the first respondent in not suspending the letter dated 29.11.2008 of the second respondent in the wake of minutes drawn by the second respondent on 30.01.2009 and also not appointing the petitioner union as bargaining agent, as arbitrary and illegal. It appears that the petitioner is a registered trade union functioning in the name and style of Orient Cement Workers Union, Devapur, Kasipet Mandal, Adilabad District, having substantial membership and it has got majority workmen of M/s.Orient Cements as its members. As per the Trade Union Act, for every two years, the respondents have to conduct verification/secret ballot election to determine the majority union of any industrial organization. It appears that verification of the membership between the trade unions was conducted on 12.05.2006 and the 4th respondent was declared as majority union and its term expired on 11.05.2008. When further verification was made on 11.05.2008, the petitioner union has got 173 votes and 4th respondent also has got 173 votes. Thus, there was a tie between them and that since there was a dispute as to the validity of two votes, the matter was referred to the State Forensic Laboratory, Hyderabad for opinion. According to the petitioner, unless the validity of those two votes is decided, the tie cannot be got over. Though the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent got equal votes, the 4th respondent is allowed to participate in the negotiations of the industrial disputes between the employees and the management, whereas the petitioner is not allowed to participate. Further, it appears that the second respondent-Deputy Commissioner of Labour has issued a letter dated 29.11.2008 asking the management to entertain the 4th respondent for negotiations till the tie is resolved. However, the petitioner made a representation dated 02.02.2009 to the first respondent stating that the petitioner and the 4th respondent has got equal votes and as such, the petitioner’s right to participate in the negotiations cannot be curtailed during the interregnum period, but the same has not been disposed of till today. Hence, the writ petition. Heard both sides. In the facts and circumstances of the case, prima facie, it appears that the request made by the petitioner is highly reasonable since the petitioner and the 4th respondent has got equal votes and it is always desirable that both the unions are allowed to participate in the negotiations till the report from the Forensic Laboratory Department is received and a decision is taken as to validity of the votes. Under those circumstances, the first respondent is directed to dispose of the representation dated 02.02.2009 of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders as per the law, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. _______________ C.V. RAMULU, J Date:20.02.2009 sj