Edarikode Textile Employees … vs Edarikode Textiles on 17 March, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 8922 of 2010(M)


1. EDARIKODE TEXTILE EMPLOYEES UNION
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. EDARIKODE TEXTILES,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE RETURNING OFFICER,

3. SMT.M.H.FATHIMA BEEVI,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN

 Dated :17/03/2010

 O R D E R
                K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J.
             -------------------------------------------
                 W.P.(C) No.8922 of 2010
             -------------------------------------------
         Dated this the 17th day of March, 2010

                          JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a registered Union representing the

workers of the first respondent. As per a memorandum of

settlement between the first respondent and its workers, a

referendum to recognize the unions in the unit of the first

respondent is decided to be conducted. The same is to be

conducted on 25.3.2010. The second respondent is the

Returning Officer and the third respondent is the

Observer. As per the rules prevailing in the first

respondent’s unit, only workers who are on the rolls of the

establishment are entitled to vote in the referendum.

2. According to the petitioner, a number of persons

who have been absenting from work for a long period of

time, persons who had gone out of India for employment

without availing leave as well as persons who have over

stayed their leave are included in the list of workers of the

establishment. He has therefore submitted a written

objection to the second respondent to remove the names

of such persons. He has also submitted a request to the

wpc No.8922/2010 2

second respondent to ensure the Secrecy of the

referendum by insisting on voting through secret ballot in

accordance with the decision in Ext.P2 Minutes of the

meeting between the Management and the Unions and, by

not numbering the ballot papers. The petitioner

complains that the second respondent is proceeding to

conduct the referendum without considering the request

of the petitioner set out in Exts.P3 and P5

representations.

3. It cannot be disputed that the second respondent

Returning Officer has a duty to consider and pass

appropriate orders on Exts.P3 and P5 before the

referendum is actually conducted.

4. In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is

disposed of directing the second respondent to consider

the requests of the petitioner in Exts.P3 and P5

representations in accordance with law and to pass

appropriate orders thereon as expeditiously as possible

and at any rate before 25.3.2010.

K.SURENDRA MOHAN,
JUDGE
css/