*THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA +W.P.No.21068 of 2004 & W.P.No.18224 of 2005 % 3-12-2007 # Power Grid Employees Union, Represented by its President E.Tata Rao .. Petitioner And $ Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., MCH Complex, R.P. Road, Secunderabad represented by its Deputy General Manager (HRM) and others .. Respondents <GIST: <HEAD NOTE: ! Counsel for petitioner in W.P.No.21068/2004 : Sri THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA W.P.No.21068 of 2004 & W.P.No.18224 of 2005 Date : 3-12-2007 W.P.No.21068/2004 Between : Power Grid Employees Union, Represented by its President E.Tata Rao .. Petitioner And Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., MCH Complex, R.P. Road, Secunderabad represented by its Deputy General Manager (HRM) and others .. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA W.P.No.21068 of 2004 & W.P.No.18224 of 2005 COMMON ORDER: 1. 3rd respondent in W.P.No.21068/2004 filed W.P.No.18224 of 2005. In view of the fact that both these Writ Petitions are concerned with the same Trade Union, both these Writ Petitions are being disposed of by this Common Order. 2. This Court issued rule nisi in W.P.No.21068/2004 on 28-12-2004 and in W.P.No.18224/2005 rule nisi was issued on 18-8- 2005. 3. Sri Krishna Murthy, the learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner in W.P.No.21068/2004 had taken this Court through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and would maintain that there is only one Union and the dispute is within the Union. The learned Counsel also would maintain that no doubt the term of three years was over, but however the office bearers are continuing in view of the extended period and in the interest of workers and members of the Union concerned, a representative who has to participate in the meetings may have to be decided. The learned Counsel also would submit that since the three years period already had lapsed and further one year extension had been given, the same situation would be repeated even after the expiry of extended period and hence let the 2nd respondent conduct elections so that the person who may have to duly represent at the meetings also may be decided in the light of the majority vote at the elections. The Counsel also placed reliance on certain decisions. 4. Sri M.S. Rama Chander Rao, the learned Counsel representing the 1st respondent-Power Grid Corporation of India Limited would maintain that in the light of the rivalry between the two persons, the President and the General Secretary, within the same Union, the management is not interested who should represent at the meeting s in between those two persons. Further, the Counsel would contend that the 2nd respondent, the Registrar of Trade Unions also is not competent to hold elections of the Trade Union as such. The Counsel also would maintain that when such factual issues are involved, since there is no remedy even under the Trade Union Act 1926 or the Rules made thereunder, these parties may have to approach a competent Civil Court to have their disputes resolved in accordance with Law. The learned Counsel placed reliance on certain decisions to substantiate his submissions. 5. Sri G.Ravi Mohan, the learned Counsel representing the 3rd respondent in W.P.No.21068/2004 and the writ petitioner in W.P.No.18224/2005 would maintain that this is not a case concerned with the dispute between the management and the Union or a case of any dispute between two Unions as such. This is a dispute between the President and the Secretary of the self-same Union. The elections to be within the Union and the same to be decided by following the democratic principles and members of the Union alone are competent to decide for themselves in relation thereto and none else can interfere. In such a case, there is no specific provision governing the situation either under the Trade Union Act 1926 or the Rules made thereunder. However, the learned Counsel would submit that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the 3rd respondent in W.P.No.21068/2004 who is the writ petitioner in W.P.No.18224/2005, being placed on a better footing, suitable directions be issued in the latter W.P.No.18224/2005. The learned Counsel also explained under what circumstances the writ petitioner was inclined to approach this Court in W.P.No.18224/2005. 6. Heard the Counsel and perused the records. 7. The Power Grid Employees Union, Registered No.1576, represented by its President filed W.P.No.21068/2004 praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent i.e., Power Grid Corporation of India Limited, M.C.H. Complex, R.P. Road, Secunderabad, A.P., represented by Deputy General Manager (Human Resources Management) to recognize the petitioner-Union and its Executive Committee and allow the representatives elected by the petitioner-Union to represent in the Bipartite Meetings in all levels after calling for the records and to pass such other suitable orders. Sri E.Tata Rao, the President of the petitioner- Union had sworn to the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. The petitioner-Union is a Trade Union registered under the Trade Union Act with registered No.B1576 and the workmen working in the 1st respondent-Corporation in the State of A.P. are the members of the Union. Out of 176 workers, 100 workers are the members of the said Union. The General Body meeting of the Union was held on 6-12-2003 at Hyderabad and the deponent was elected as the President of the Union and the 3rd respondent was elected as the Secretary of the Union. There is another Trade Union affiliated to C.I.T.U. and an election was held by a secret ballot for electing two representatives of the workmen in the Corporation. It is also averred that the two Trade Unions, the petitioner- Union has got 54% of workers and no Trade Union has got 60% or more than 60% of the workers and therefore the petitioner-Union and the other Trade Union have to send one representative from each in order to Unions to participate in all the Bipartite discussions with the management of the 1st respondent-Corporation. The 3rd respondent, without discussing in the Executive Committee sent his name while giving notice to the President of the Union with false allegations. The President sent reply to the Secretary and there was no response and therefore, they called for General Body meeting which was held on 9-5-2004 at Vijayawada. The proceedings of the General Body meeting had been placed before the Court. The 3rd respondent did not attend the meeting. The General Body gave notice to the 3rd respondent to attend the meeting scheduled to be held on 6-6-2004 at Vijayawada for explaining about the action of nominating himself and also the notice given to the President with false allegations. The 3rd respondent did not attend the meeting on 6-6-2004 at Vijayawada and no explanation was sent to the meeting. The conduct of the 3rd respondent was discussed in the General Body and a unanimous opinion was expressed that the conduct of the 3rd respondent was not congenial to the Trade Union and on the other hand it is adverse to the interest of the Union and it would cause loss if he continued as Secretary. Therefore, a unanimous resolution was passed expelling the 3rd respondent from the post obligation General Secretary with effect from 6-6-2004. Further, the General Body meeting held on 5-5-2004 elected Sri D.Shyam Rao as the General Secretary and it was also decided to send Sri Md.Davoodali, Vice- President of the Union to represent in the Power Grid National Bipartite Committee. It is also stated that they sent the proceedings to the 1st respondent. The 3rd respondent with a mala fide intention sent another representation. The 1st respondent sought clarification from the 2nd respondent as to whom the 1st respondent had to recognize. Further, the 2nd respondent should have decided the matter either on the basis of records or should have conducted General Body meeting of the Union through any of the officials. In stead of performing the public and statutory duty, he expressed his inability to clarify the issue. The 1st respondent should have verified the records himself and decide the issue. It is also stated that the very object of the Trade Union is to maintain harmonious atmosphere between the management and the workers and it is necessary in the interest of maintaining harmonious atmosphere to take necessary and incidental action either by the 1st respondent or the 2nd respondent. In stead of taking positive action, the 1st respondent did not allow the representative of the petitioner-Union to participate in the Bipartite meetings. It is further stated that so far as one meeting was held without allowing the representative of the petitioner- Union. Another meeting was scheduled to be held in December 2004. Besides the above meeting, the grievances of the workers are to be represented by the petitioner-Union and the 1st respondent is not allowing the representative of the petitioner-Union to represent the grievances of the workmen. It is also further stated that the Bipartite meetings are at three levels viz., National level, Regional level and Station level. The 1st respondent is not allowing the respondents of the petitioner-Union in these Bipartite meetings. There is no other alternative and hence the writ petitioner approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition. Certain grounds also had been specifically averred in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. 8. The 1st respondent filed counter affidavit stating that the Power Grid Employees Union is a registered Trade Union bearing Registration No.B-1576 operating in the Southern Region Transmission System-I. The said Trade Union had polled 86 (53.09%) of votes out of the total 170 votes polled in the elections held on 21-1- 2004 for membership of the Power Grid National Bipartite Committee (PNBC), a Bipartite Forum of Power Grid Management and Unions to negotiate various issues concerning the workers including wages. As per the Memorandum of Agreement between the Management and the Unions, this Union had secured one seat for the PNBC. On 1-1-2004, a communication was received from the 3rd respondent stating that Sri E.Tatarao was elected as the President of the petitioner-Union and he was elected as the General Secretary in the elections held on 6-12-2003 at the General Body meeting of the Union. Subsequently, a letter dated 22-3-2004 was received from the 3rd respondent nominating himself as the representative of the petitioner-Union in PNBC. Subsequently, another letter dated 6-6-2004 jointly signed by Sri E.Tatarao and D.Shamrao in the capacity of President and General Secretary respectively of the Union was received by the 1st respondent stating that the 3rd respondent was expelled from the post of General Secretary and that Md. Dawood Ali, Vice President was nominated as representative of the petitioner and Ch.Ranadheer Rao, Organising Secretary was the alternative representative in the PNBC. The 3rd respondent also informed the 1st respondent that E.Tatarao was expelled from the post of President in a General Body Meeting held on 6-6-2004 at Secunderabad. The 1st respondent therefore addressed a letter dated 20-7-2004 to the Registrar of Trade Unions and Commissioner of Labour, Labour Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, to examine and consider issuing appropriate directions as to which of the conflicting communications (letter dated 22-3-2004 or letter dated 6- 6-2004) regarding the nomination is to be accepted by the 1st respondent for inclusion in the PNBC. Vide letter dated 17-9-2004, the Joint Commissioner of Labour-III informed that constitution of the PNBC is a Bilateral issue and his office cannot give any direction in the matter as it is outside the purview of the Registrar. It is further stated that the 1st respondent has no mechanism to decide the truth or otherwise of the alleged expulsion of the 3rd respondent by the group lead by E.Tatarao or the alleged expulsion of E.Tatarao by the group lead by the 3rd respondent. Only a competent Civil Court can decide this issue as it is a matter requiring enquiry and evidence. It is further stated that in so far as the recognition of the petitioner-Union is concerned, there is no dispute because of the facts aforesaid. As regards the recognition of the Executive Committee where Sri E.Tatarao is the President, there is difficulty in view of his alleged expulsion by the group lead by the 3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent’s alleged expulsion by the group lead by E.Tatarao. 9. In the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, it is averred that the Power Grid National Bipartite Committee (PNBC) meeting was held on 4th and 5th of October 2004. During the said meeting, it was decided to conduct elections-2004. While so, the 3rd respondent was pleased to issue a Circular dated 15-11- 2003 in respect to finalizing final voters list and to establishing the polling booth and the date of election was fixed on 20-7-2004. It is also further stated that the elections were conducted as per the memorandum of agreement 2003 (re-constitution of Power Grid National Bipartite Committee (PNBC)-2003. As per the procedure, the election notification was issued by the Chief Election Officer and accordingly the elections were conducted and finally election results were declared by the order dated 4- 2-2004 wherein the 3rd respondent’s Power Grid Employees Union won the elections by 53.9% of votes. Further, the management was pleased to issue a letter dated 10-3-2004 to nominate workmen to represent in re- constitution of Power Grid National Bipartite Committee (PNBC) on behalf of the majority Union. The majority Union will nominate a person from its Union to represent on its behalf in the re-constituted Power Grid National Bipartite Committee (PNBC). The 3rd respondent is the General Secretary of the Power Grid Employees Union since 22 years. The employees Union in its meeting dated 6-12-2003 selected the General Secretary i.e., the 3rd respondent, to participate in the re-constitution conducted by PNBC India Limited. The powers of General Secretary were enumerated for the said meeting and the same are as hereunder : i) As the representation of Trade Unions in Power Grid is based under the provisions of consultative forum, Union is expected to exercise move discipline and maintain diplomacy with the organization; ii) The process of consultation (PNBC) will be initiated by filing nomination to contest elections for PNBC through secret ballot. The General Secretary of Union will submit nomination. On succession in election, for re-constitution of PNBC conducted by PGC of India Limited, the General Secretary Coordinates the representation from Union. iii) Since maintaining discipline is utmost concern, General Secretary of the Union will act as disciplinary authority, as deemed necessary. iv) For the purpose of attaining decorum in Union no union executives/members may resort to any collection of money for any purpose other than monthly subscription from members only; v) All the Union General Body meetings will be coordinated by the General Secretary at the registered office address of the Union or at any place notified by the General Secretary only; vi) All the monthly subscription will be coordinated by Treasurer who will send the proceeds to General Secretary for deciding the mode of expenditure on various occasions as required. Consented by all members attended for this rules. It is also averred that the petitioner also signed in the said meeting which is placed at sl.no.9, given consent for selecting the 3rd respondent for representing in PNBC and therefore it is very clear that the 3rd respondent was authorised to represent PNBC meeting on behalf of the Power Grid Employees Union majority Union from the SRTS-I constituency. Further, in pursuance of the proceedings dated 10-3-2004, the 3rd respondent’s name was communicated to the management vide letter dated 23-3-2004 and the same is accepted by the respondents. Therefore there is no hurdle in any manner either to the management or to the members of the employees Union for electing the 3rd respondent as General Secretary and also in respect to nominating him in PNBC. Further it is stated that the Power Grid Employees Union again conducted general body meeting and in the said meeting, the petitioner Mr.Tata Rao was removed from the post of President for illegal activities and the same had been informed to the management. Therefore the present dispute is a personal dispute between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent and the said dispute cannot be agitated before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, specific stand had been taken that the Writ Petition is not maintainable and further other averments relating to Shyam Rao being elected as the General Secretary of the Union on 6-6-2004 and Davvodali being elected as Vice President of the Union also had been denied. 10. The 3rd respondent in W.P.No.21068/2004 filed W.P.No.18224/2005 praying for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not calling and not informing to the petitioner in conducting Power Grid National Bipartite Committee meeting as the same is wholly illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the respondents to inform about the Power Grid National Bipartite Committee meetings to the petitioner and permit the petitioner to attend the Power Grid National Bipartite Committee meetings which are being conducted by the respondent during his tenure of three years and to pass such other suitable orders. It is stated that the petitioner is the General Secretary of the Power Grid Employees Union which is a registered Trade Union under Trade Union Act with registered No.B.1576. Further it is stated that there are about 178 employees in total working in various capacities. There are about 12 branches in Andhra Pradesh. The respondent is a Central Government organization which transmits power and will form a Committee called Power Grid National Bipartite Committee (PNBC) for every three years. The Committee comprises of elected leaders from all over the country. SRTS-I is a nominee elected as PNBC member from Southern region or constituency which includes complete Andhra Pradesh and part of Karnataka. Accordingly, there are about 11 divisions from all over the country including the 2nd respondent SRTS-I (Southern Region Transmission System-I). It is further stated that a memorandum of agreement was entered between the workers Union and the management for reconstitution of PNBC for the period with effect from 2004 to 2007 and this memorandum of agreement is in respect of election for PNBC by way of secret ballot. The elected candidates will be the member for PNBC. This Committee will be for a period of three years from the date of declaration of election. As per Chapter-II, there are about 12 Constituencies and the petitioner falls under SRTS-I. Further, the petitioner was elected by the petitioner-Union to participate for PNBC in the elections conducted through secret ballot conducted on 22-1-2004. The petitioner-Union secured majority votes in PNBC 2004. The petitioner-Union issued letter dated 23-3-2004 nominating Mr.P.Narasinga Rao i.e., the petitioner herein, as the General Secretary for the petitioner-Union and representing the Union in SRTS-I in PNBC and the same was accepted by the respondents vide letter dated 3-1- 2005. Further it is stated that it had been concluded and admitted fact that the petitioner being General Secretary of the Power Grid Employees Union was elected in the elections conducted by the respondents for representing in SRTS-I in PNBC meeting. There are about 12 members including the petitioner who comprise the Committee namely, PNBC from all over India. The intention of the formation of the said Committee is that the Committee will act as a catalyst between the employees of the Power Grid and the respondents organization. Any agreement or any understanding between the respondents and the PNBC will be binding on the employees of the respondents through out India. This PNBC will act as co-ordinate Committee between the employees and the respondents-organisation. Further, the petitioner is one of the member of the Committee who was elected and selected by due process of elections conducted by the management from the Southern Region. It is further stated that after declaration of elections in the month of June 2004, the Government had conducted five meetings at Head Office, Delhi. The petitioner had not received any invitation from the respondents calling him to participate in the PNBC meetings. On the other hand, the respondents invited all the members of the Committee from all over the country who were elected along with the petitioner. The said action of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary and unjust. Further, the petitioner had been elected for participating in the PNBC by the employees of the complete Andhra Pradesh and part of Karnataka, but to the unfortunately there is no representative from the Power Grid Employees Union throughout Andhra Pradesh and part of Karnataka. The representative is being denied by the respondents without any reasons. In view of the said illegal action of the respondents, the petitioner made representation to the respondents on 26-2-2005 to invite the petitioner or to inform the petitioner when the meetings are being conducted. But, for the reasons best known to the 1st respondent the invitations respondents issued through out India except to the petitioner who is elected from Andhra Pradesh. The said action of the respondents is illegal and discriminative in nature. In spite of repeated requests made by the petitioner, no action had been initiated. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.9475/2005 before this Court and this Court was pleased to dispose of the Writ Petition with a direction to dispose of the representation made by the petitioner, but to the reasons best known to the respondents, no action had been initiated till date. Further, it is stated that the petitioner was elected in 2004 and till date the petitioner had not attended a single meeting of PNBC. The respondents clearly denied representative of Andhra Pradesh and Part of Karnataka for participating in the PNBC meeting for the period of nearly one year two months. In such circumstances, the writ petitioner approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying the relief already specified supra. 11. W.P.M.P.No.1863/2006 is filed in W.P.No.18224/2005 praying to implead the petitioner- Union represented by D.Shyam Rao, as 3rd respondent in W.P.No.18224/2005 and also in the miscellaneous petitions. In view of the facts and circumstances, the said implead application is hereby ordered. 12. In the counter affidavits filed by respondents 1 and 2 it is averred that the Power Grid Corporation of India Limited had been notified as Central Transmission Utility under the Electricity Act, 2003 and is discharging various functions under the Act. The Corporation is having seven Regional offices in different places of the country and the Southern Region Transmission System-I (SRTS-I) Headquarters is situate in Secunderabad and is under the administrative control of the Executive Director. It is further stated that the issue in the present case is whether the petitioner who is the so-called General Secretary of the Power Grid Employees Union can be deputed as a representative of the said Union in the PNBC and other Bipartite meetings in all levels between the management and the workmen. The representation of the Power Grid Employees Union of the petitioner had been kept in abeyance in the All India Level Powergrid National Bipartite Committee (PNBC) and other Bipartite Committees in all levels in view of the counter claims made by the two leaders of the same Union for representation. As per the agreement reached between the management and the Unions on all India basis, Unions securing 60% of the votes and more will represent all the seats (two in the case of SRTS-I) of the Region and 15% of the votes and more has to be secured by the Union for representation. As per the said agreement, election was conducted through secret ballot. Power Grid Employees Union of the petitioner polled 53.09% of votes and another union Power Grid Workers Union polled 46.91%. Thus, both the Unions has got one seat to represent SRTS-I. Further it is stated that the Power Grid Employees Union, because of the counter claims made by the two leaders of the same Union, was informed that the representation of Power Grid Employees Union in all India level PNBC meeting and other Bipartite meetings in all levels cannot be considered till the