Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge, Justice Ashwin D . Bhobe, Bombay High Court
Undemocratic For Employer To Superimpose Conditions For Deciding Who Should Contest Election Of Trade Union: Bombay High Court
|The National Federation of Atomic Energy Employees had approached the Bombay High Court challenging an office memorandum imposing restrictions on the members of the Union in contesting their union elections.
The Bombay High Court has ruled that it is not only arbitrary, but also undemocratic for an employer to superimpose conditions for deciding who should contest an election of Trade Union and for what tenure he should hold the office or for how many terms should he get elected.
The petitioner-National Federation of Atomic Energy Employees approached the High Court seeking a declaration that Rule 15 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964 does not apply to the associations or trade unions whose membership is restricted to the employees working in the Department of Atomic Energy or any Ministry or department of the Government of India. The Petitioner was aggrieved by an Office Memorandum whereby the Government had imposed restrictions on the servants who are members of the Petitioner's union, in contesting their union elections.
The Petitioner had also sought a declaration that the insistence of the DAE of a restricted tenure of 2 terms or 5 years maximum to be office bearers of such service associations/unions/federations is in violation of the statutory Central Civil Services (Recognition of Service Association) Rules 1993.
The Division Bench of Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge & Justice Ashwin D . Bhobe asserted, “However, it is not only arbitrary, but is also undemocratic for an employer to superimpose conditions for deciding who should contest an election and for what tenure should he hold the office and for how many terms should he get elected. This is a part of the Constitution of the Union coupled with the right of an individual to contest elections of a Trade Union as long as he is a member of the Trade Union and is not debarred or disqualified by any clause under its constitution.”
Advocate Ramesh Ramamurthy represented the Petitioners, while Advocate Amrendra Mishra represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The first Petitioner is the National Federation of Atomic Energy Employees working in the Department of Atomic Energy and its constituent units all over the country, and the second Petitioner is the Atomic Energy Workers and Staff Union representing the non-gazetted employees working in Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai, a department of Atomic Energy.
The grievance of the Petitioners was the office memorandum dated August 5, 2019, issued by the Government of India, vide which, the Under Secretary to the Government of India had imposed certain restrictions under Rule 15(1)(c) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. It was ordered that no government servant shall, except with the previous sanction of the Government, hold an elective office or canvas for a candidate or candidates for an elective office in any body, whether incorporated or not.
The petitioner filed the Petition on the ground that the Government had imposed restrictions on the servants who are members of the Petitioner's union, in contesting their union elections. This undermines the Rule of democracy and the right of union members to contest elections to various posts within the union. It was their case that the impugned memorandum imposes a cap on the number of elections to be contested by a candidate, who may choose to get elected or have a family member/close relative elected over different Union bodies.
Reasoning
The Bench, at the outset, said, “No employer can create such service rules which would create an embargo on the terms and conditions or the clauses of the Constitution of a Trade Union. The freedom to franchise/to contest an election/select from amongst the contesting candidates/to enjoy a term prescribed under the constitution of the Union, etc., cannot be curbed by a circular or Office Memorandum of an Employer.”
The Bench noted that there was no embargo either under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, nor had the Respondent pointed out that the Constitution of these unions has an inbuilt embargo or creates a restriction on the number of terms to be enjoyed by an elected Office Bearer.
The Bench referred to the judgment in Blue Star Limited, Bombay Vs. Blue Star Workers’ Union and others (1996) and held that if the employer finds that if any elected Office Bearer is not working up to the mark or is ignoring the duties for which he has been engaged, by spending more time in union activities, the employer is always within its means to take action. “Notwithstanding that he is an elected Office Bearer, he has to ensure that he performs his duties diligently and does not indulge in union activities by sacrificing his official duties. In this context, the employer can always initiate disciplinary action against an errant Office Bearer”, the Bench added.
With such observations, the Bench allowed the Petition and also granted the reliefs sought.
Cause Title: National Federation of Atomic Energy Employees (NFAEE) v. Union Of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:17857-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Ramesh Ramamurthy, Saikumar Ramamurthy, Seema Sorte, Priyanka Katkam
Respondent: Advocates Amrendra Mishra, Ashutosh Mishra