IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 28985 of 2009(P)
1. E.S.SURESH,
... Petitioner
2. V.G.VIJI,
3. K.J.JOHN,
Vs
1. THE PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA
... Respondent
2. MR.N.MOHAN KUMAR,
For Petitioner :SRI.RAJEEV V.KURUP
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :19/10/2009
O R D E R
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J.
------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.28985 OF 2009
------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of October, 2009
J U D G M E N T
———————-
1. Petitioners are workers in one of the estates owned by
the 1st respondent Corporation. The matter involved in this writ
petition pertains to the conduct of referendum to recognise trade
unions among the labourers of the 1st respondent. The 1st
respondent had taken decision to conduct referendum as per
Ext.P4 order, grouping various estates under the 1st respondent
into 9 units. Petitioners are working within Unit No:3 which
consist of 2 distinct estates. According to the petitioner, the
proposal for counting of votes in Unit No:3 is on divisional
basis, is not correct and proper. It is submitted that each
division is having strength of only 12 to 40 employees and if
votes are counted separately on divisional basis, it would be easy
for the authorities of the 1st respondent to find out as to which
union a particular employee had casted his vote. It is
apprehended that such a situation will compel the workers to
cast their votes against their own conscience, due to
apprehension of victimization at the hands of trade union leaders
who are already in the Director Board of the 1st respondent
W.P.(C).28985/09-P 2
Corporation, as nominees of the Government.
2. It is submitted that in all other units, except in Unit
No.3, procedure has been prescribed by the 2nd respondent
Returning Officer, on the basis of discussions conducted with
representatives of the trade unions, that counting of votes by
shuffling the ballets pertaining to all the divisions in a unit will
be done. But with respect to Unit No.3, it is alleged that, the
votes will be counted separately. This according to the
petitioner is on the basis of mandate of some of the Board
Members who are prevailing upon the decision of the 2nd
respondent.
3. The petitioners have already submitted Ext.P5
representation before the 2nd respondent expressing the above
apprehensions and requesting for counting after shuffling of
ballet papers from different divisions, within a unit. Since the 2nd
respondent is the competent authority vested with the function
of conduct of referendum, the procedures has to be evolved by
himself on a uniform basis. Needless to say that with respect to
the conduct of referendum the prime concern should be that the
workers should get a free opportunity to express their
conscience in a fearless manner. It is the duty of the 2nd
respondent to ensure that facility for secret voting is provided to
the workers as far as possible. I do not find any reason as to why
W.P.(C).28985/09-P 3
a request in the nature of Ext.P5 could not be considered.
However, the 2nd respondent is in seizin of Ext.P5 and he is the
competent authority to formulate procedures regarding conduct
of elections.
4. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of with a
direction to the 2nd respondent to take a decision on Ext.P5, after
considering the grievance of the petitioners and after taking note
of the observations made above. A decision taken in this regard
may be intimated to the petitioners within three days of receipt
of a copy of this judgment.
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.
okb