All India Rural Postal Employees Union v. The Director (SR/WC)O/o. Director General (Posts)New Delhi – 110 001.

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,praying to call for the records of the fourth respondent, pertaining toCommunication No.13-31/98 SR, dated 09.02.1999 together withCommunication No.SR/1-11/98-99, dated 12.02.1999 of the fifth respondentand quash the order by issuing a writ of Certiorarified mandamus andconsequently direct the respondents to set in motion and theverification process either by secret ballot or by entrusting the taskof scrutinizing the option / authorization forms given by the Class IIIEmployees of the Postal Department by an independent officer of the rankof Divisional Superintendent in the matter of deciding therepresentative capacity of the Unions concerned. For petitioner : Mr.V.Prakash, Senior Counsel for M/s. Ayar and Dolia in all the writ petitions For respondents: Mr.S.Udayakumar, SCGSC for R1 to R5 in all the writ petitions Mr.M.Suresh Kumar for R6 in W.P.No.4704/99 Ms.R.Vaigai for R7 and R8 in W.P.No.4704/99 and R6 and R7 in W.P.No.4706 /99COMMON JUDGMENTS.TAMILVANAN, JThe Writ Appeal in W.A.No.2333 of 2003 has been preferred againstthe order, dated 09.04.2003 passed by the learned Single Judge inW.P.No.20598 of 2000, whereby it has been held that there is noimpediment on the part of the appellant herein, who was the respondentin the writ petition, to verify the application submitted by therespondent, on the ground that the reasoning given by the appellant, byorder, dated 29.06.2000 could not be sufficient to non-suit therespondent, from seeking the relief, as prayed for in theirapplications. With the above observation, the appellant herein wasdirected to process the application, dated 29.12.1998 filed by therespondent, as being done in other cases and keep it pending and passappropriate orders, as per the outcome of the result of the writpetitions in W.P.Nos.4704 to 4707 of 1999.2. The writ petition in W.P.No.20598 of 2000 was filed by thepetitioner Union, who is the respondent in the writ appeal, seeking toissue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records of theorder of the appellant / respondent in Letter No.13-36/2000/SR, dated29.05.2000 and the consequential order, dated 15.09.2000 and quash thesame and also to direct the respondent therein to grant recognition tothe petitioner union, based on the application, dated 29.12.1998.3. It is seen that the respondent herein as petitioner in the writpetition has averred that he is the General Secretary of therespondent's union, having object to ventilate the grievances anddemands of the Extra Departmental Agents of the Postal Department. It is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ further stated that the Extra Departmental Employees have decided toform an independent forum to discuss their problems with the Governmentand to get the recommendations being implemented and accordingly, withthe said object, the Union submitted an application to get recognitionfrom the Government of India (Postal Department). According to therespondent, their union is having membership in the Tamil Nadu Region,which is more than 10% of the total strength of the Extra DepartmentalAgents of India as a whole and submitted all the proposals and appliedfor recognition to the appellant herein on 29.12.1998 and certaindefects were sought to be rectified and the same were complied with, asdirected by the appellant. The respondent has submitted that the defectspointed out by the appellant were rectified and the proposal was re-submitted for consideration, however, the appellant did not pass anyorder. But by order, dated 12.01.2000, the appellant intimated that thestatus of the Unions, after expiry of two years period of recognition isunder consideration and till such time, re-verification process for thepurpose of recognition of Unions / Associations is kept in abeyance. 4. Then, the respondent / petitioner was informed by order, dated29.06.2000, that the last date was 31.05.2000 for submitting applicationfor participation in the verification process for the purpose ofrecognition under EDA (RA) Rules, 1995. The application of therespondent was received after the due date, that is on 21.06.2000 andthereby negated that the respondent could not be allowed to participatein the verification process for the time being, since the applicationwas submitted after the last date. The said order was challenged in thewrit petition. The respondent herein had sought for an order to quashthe order passed by the appellant herein and to direct the appellant togrant recognition to the respondent union, based on the application ofthe respondent, dated 29.12.1998. As per the impugned order, underchallenge, there was no total rejection of the respondent's applicationand the order was passed only for the time being, since the appellanthad expressed inability to accept the application for verificationprocess after the due date.5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent in the writpetition submitted that batch of writ petitions in W.P.Nos.4704 to 4707of 1999 etc., were pending before this Court with regard to the sameissue as to the recognition sought for by several other unions, likethat of the petitioner and interim orders were passed in those writpetitions. In support of the same, copies of certain interim orderspassed by this Court in the earlier writ petitions were produced. It hasbeen found by the learned Single Judge that in none of the interimorders, as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant herein, thedate 31.05.2000 was stated to be the crucial date and in one of theorder, dated 30.08.1999, this Court passed an order to the effect that'the verification process may go on and the result may be publishedafter getting permission from this Court'. In the above circumstances,the learned Single Judge, has directed to process the application of therespondent, dated 29.12.1998, as being done in the other cases. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6. W.P.No.4704 of 1999 has been filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India by Bharatiya Postal Employees Union against Unionof India, Ministry of Communications, New Delhi and others to call forthe records of the Director (Staff Relations), Department of Posts, DakBhavan, New Delhi – 110 001, the fourth respondent herein pertaining toCommunication No.13-31/98 SR, dated 09.02.1999 together withCommunication No.SR/1-11/98-99, dated 12.02.1999 of the Chief Post-Master General, Tamil Nadu Circle, Chennai, the fifth respondent hereinand quash the said order, by an order of Certiorarified Mandamus anddirect the respondents to set the verification process in motion, eitherby secret ballot or by entrusting the task of scrutinizing the option /authorization forms given by the Class III Employees of the PostalDepartment by an independent officer in the rank of DivisionalSuperintendent in the matter of deciding the representative capacity ofthe Unions are concerned.7. W.P.No.4705 of 1999 has been filed by Bharatiya RMS/MMSEmployees Union against the respondents, seeking similar orders in thenature of Certiorarified Mandamus.8. W.P.No.4706 of 1999 has been filed by Bharatiya Postal EmployeesUnion against the respondents, seeking similar orders in the nature ofCertiorarified Mandamus.9. W.P.No.4707 of 1999 has been filed by Bharatiya PostalAdministrative Officer's Employees Union, Group C and D against therespondents, seeking similar relief, by way of issuance of an order ofCertiorarified Mandamus.10. In the Grounds of appeal, the appellant herein has stated thatthe writ petitions are not legally maintainable, on the ground that theapplication, dated 29.12.1998 had been submitted by the respondentUnion, which could not be considered for the year 2000. The appellanthas further stated that the application of the respondent union, dated17.06.2000 was received by the Appellant Department only on 21.06.2000,much after the cut-off date, 31.05.2000, though the verificationprocess of the Appellant Department had already been over, pursuant tothe notification of the interim order passed in W.P.Nos.4704 to 4707 of1999. According to the appellant, the application, dated 29.12.1998submitted by the respondent could not be processed practically, as theverification process had already been over. The appellant has furtherstated that the respondent union had not submitted their application forrecognition within the prescribed time limit, the same was notconsidered in the impugned order passed in the writ petition. Theappellant has stated that the last date for submitting application was31.05.2000, however, the application of the respondent union wasreceived only on 21.06.2000, much after the cut-off date, hence, thewrit petition filed by the respondent / petitioner is not legallysustainable. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

11. In W.P.No.20598 of 2000, All India Rural Postal EmployeesUnion, the petitioner therein has sought an order to issue a writ ofcertiorarified mandamus, calling for the records relating to the orderof the respondent, who is the appellant herein in Letter No.13-36/2000/SR, dated 29.05.2000 and quash the said order and theconsequential order, dated 15.09.2000 and also direct the appellant inW.A.No.2333 of 2003 to grant recognition to the respondent union, basedon the alleged application, dated 29.12.1998. The learned single Judge,by the impugned order, dated 09.04.2003, directed the appellant hereinto process the application, dated 29.12.1998, as being done in the othercases and keep it pending and pass appropriate orders, as per theoutcome of the result of the writ petitions in W.P.Nos.4704 to 4707 of1999.12. In the writ petition in W.P.No.4704 of 1999, Bharatiya PostalEmployees Union, the petitioner therein, has sought relief, by way ofissuing a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records,relating to the fourth respondent, Director (Staff Relations),Department of Posts, Dak Bhavan, New Delhi – 110 001, pertaining toCommunication No.13-31/98 SR, dated 09.02.1999 together withCommunication No.SR/1-11/98-99, dated 12.02.1999 of the Chief Post-Master General, Tamil Nadu Circle, Chennai, the fifth respondent hereinand quash the said order and also direct the respondents to set inmotion the verification process , either by secret ballot or byentrusting the task of scrutinizing the option / authorization formsgiven by the Class III Employees of the Postal Department by anindependent officer of the rank of Divisional Superintendent in thematter of deciding the representative capacity of the Unions concerned.13. In the writ petitions, W.P.No.4705 of 1999 filed by BharatiyaRMS/MMS Employees Union, W.P.No.4706 of 1999 filed by Bharatiya PostalEmployees Union, W.P.No.4707 of 1999 filed by Bharatiya PostalAdministrative Officer's Employees Union, Group C and D, have sought forsimilar orders, to quash the order passed by the fourth and the fifthrespondents and direct all the respondents to set in motion theverification process , either by secret ballot or by entrusting the taskof scrutinizing the option / authorization forms given by the Class IIIEmployees of the Postal Department by an independent officer of the rankof Divisional Superintendent in the matter of deciding therepresentative capacity of the Unions concerned.14. Ms.R.Vaigai, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 7and 8 submitted that in the matter of the recognition of trade unions,verification of the applications and the details furnished therein arenecessary factors, however, secret ballot method cannot be adopted forthe same. In support of her contention, the learned counsel cited aThree Judge Bench Decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in, Assn. of Engg.Workers vs. Dockyard Labour Union, reported in 1995 Supp (4) SCC 544,wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows : https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "2... Even if the method of secret ballot isrestored with the consent of parties and care hasbeen taken to see that only those employees who hadput in more than six months of service were allowedto cast their preference for the purpose ofdetermining allegiance that was not a proper methodfor verification of the condition required forrecognition under Section 11 and hence, it was amethod which was clearly alien to the statute..."15. In the grounds of appeal, the appellant has stated that theapplication of the respondent, All India Rural Postal Employees union,dated 29.12.1998 for recognition of the union could not be consideredfor the year 2000 and the application of the respondent, dated17.06.2000, which was received by the appellant department only on21.06.2000, much after the cut-off date, 31.05.2000. On the date ofreceipt of the application on 21.06.2000, verification process of theappellant department had been over, pursuant to the modification of theinterim order, passed in W.P.Nos.4704 to 4707 of 1999. According to thelearned counsel appearing for the appellant, having found that theimpugned order is not the one totally rejecting the application of therespondent union, but was only for the time being and also consideringthe inability expressed by the appellant that the verification processcould not be complied with, after the cut off date, the writ petitionshould have been dismissed by the learned single Judge. Mr.S.Udayakumar,SCGSC, learned counsel for the appellant mainly submitted his argumentthat the verification process of applications had already been over.Though the last date for the submission of the application for theparticipation in the verification process was 31.05.2000, the appellanthad submitted the application, only after the said date. The applicationwas received only on 21.06.2000, after the cut off date, 31.05.2000.Therefore, the verification process was practically not possible by theappellant.16. Mr.V.Prakash, learned senior counsel appearing for the writpetitioners submitted that all the petitioner unions are trade unions,registered under the Trade Union Act. The Class III (Group C) staffworking in the postal department, all over India are the members in theunion. Prior to 1997, the postal department recognised the serviceassociation / unions. Originally, there was existence of Central ServiceRules (Recognition of service association) 1959. Till 1997, thepetitioner was the union recognized by the respondent postal departmentrepresenting Class III (Group C) employees of the postal department,however, the rules were superceded by the Central Service (Recognitionof service association) Rules, 1993. The Government of India purportedto have brought the same into force by virtue of the powers vested inthe President of India, under Article 309 of the Constitution of India.The recognition and concomitant privileges and facilities are affordedonly to service associations / unions and not the employees. Rule 4 ofthe recognition rules extended the life time to existing recognised https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ service associations / unions for particular period / periods, subjectto the condition that they should follow the procedures prescribed underthe relevant rules for getting recognition as per the Recognition Rules1993. 17. It is submitted that rule 5 of the Recognition Rules prescribeconditions for recognition of service associations, 'inter alia', itspecifies that service associations should be restricted to a distinctcategory of Government service having common interest and sub clause d(i) of Rule 5 prescribes, "The association represents minimum 35% oftotal number of category of employees, provided that where there is onlyone association which commands more than 35% membership, although, anassociation having less than 35% may also be recognised, if it commandsat least 15% membership"; Rule 6 provides the condition, subject towhich recognition is continued and Rule 7 provides for the verificationof membership. In order to determine the representative character on thecapacity of the service association, operating in the GovernmentDepartments, check-off system in pay rolls at such intervals and in sucha manner as the Government may pass orders, prescribing conditions,resort to on account of the haphazard and methods adopted by therespondents in making verification and as such, the petitioner unionswere declared to have lost their representative capacity to representClass III employees in 1997 and that Rule 8 of the Recognition Rulesprovides for the withdrawal of Recognition.18. The writ petitioners have challenged the communication of thefourth respondent as arbitrary, irregular and untenable. The learnedcounsel appearing for the writ petitioners mainly contended that thepresent method of entrusting option / authorization forms to the drawingand disbursing officer and allowing them to decide as to which union theemployees belong to is highly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 ofthe Constitution of India. According to the learned counsel for thepetitioners, the drawing and disbursing officers are also being membersof their union / association and may seek to divert option forms infavour of the union / association to which they belong and in which theyare members. The impugned communication is challenged on the ground thatit does not constitute an independent, impartial, election machinery todecide the representative capacity and character of the unions concernedand further contended that the check off system has lost its appeal andso the secret ballot system is found to be a full proof method. Even ifcheck off system were to be continued as per Rule, the custody of option/ authorization forms must be with an impartial higher rank officer likeDivisional Superintendent and he must decide the membership of theemployees based on such option / authorization letter and the sameshould not be left to disbursing officers, who have their own leaningstowards their unions / associations in which they are members. 19. It was further contended that in the postal department, theemployees are given option / authorization forms by more than one union,who participate in the exercise, which is making a mess of the system. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The next point raised by the learned Senior Counsel is that the impugnedorder cuts the root of the maintenance of 'secrecy" in the matter ofascertaining the decision of the employees, as to which of the unions /associations they belong to and ultimately in deciding as to which union/ association has the representative capacity, as contemplated underRule 5 (d) (i) of the Recognition Rules 1993. To over come the practicaldifficulties, it was suggested that verification process could be doneby an officer of the Divisional Superintendent and after havingcollected the option / authorization forms from the employees themselvesand scrutinize the same in the presence of one representative from eachof the unions and forward the same to the fifth respondent, otherwisethere would be chaos and confusions in the matter of deciding therepresentative capacity and character of the unions concerned.20. A Division Bench of this Court in the decision, The SouthernRailway Mazdoor Union vs. The Railway Board and others, reported in2004-2-L.W.407, has held that the right to form Trade Union is notmerely a statutory right, under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, but aftercoming into force of the Constitution of India, a fundamental rightguaranteed under Article 19 (1)(c) of the Constitution. The Trade UnionsAct does not prohibit simultaneous membership in an unlimited number ofunions, which is wholly irrelevant for the purpose of accordingrecognition. Recognition is not a right guaranteed to all unionsregistered under the Trade Unions Act. The Trade Unions Act does notdeal with recognition. It does not either require or prohibit theemployer from giving recognition to unions registered under the Act.21. A Division Bench of this Court, in an unreported judgment inW.A.Nos.923 and 924 of 2005, dated 03.08.2005, has held that inpursuance of the Notification, where 11 unions have contested /participated for the second verification, which was held on 01.12.2004and each union, so contested in the said election had to canvass for theunion and the first respondent, Chairman and Managing Director, BSNL hadto take into consideration the number of votes polled individually andnot collectively for the purpose of recognition. By the impugned orderstherein, it was declared that the third respondent/ BSNL Employees Unionwas the majority representative union for a period of two years from thedate of Notification therein. The third respondent union therein hadsecured 1,39,827 votes as against 1,00,226 votes secured by thepetitioner union therein. Hence, the third respondent union was rightlydeclared as majority representative union. Relying on the decision, AllIndia State Bank Officers Federation vs. Union of India, 1990 (Supp) SCC336 and Chairman, State Bank of India vs. Orissa State Bank of IndiaOfficer's Association, 2003 (11) SCC 607, the Division Bench of thisCourt confirmed the order passed by the Chairman and Managing Director,BSNL.22. In the decision, Balmer Lawrie Workers' Union vs. Balmer Lawrie& Co., Ltd., reported in 1984 (Supp) SCC 663, the Hon'ble Apex Court hasheld that Section 20 (2) of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, which confers anexclusive right to represent workmen of any undertaking of an unionwhich acquires the status of a recognised union under 1971 Act andsimultaneously denies the right to a workman to appear or act or to beallowed to represent in any proceeding under the Industrial Dispute Act,1947, which is not violative of fundamental right to form associationguaranteed by Article 19 (1) (C).23. Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision,A.K.Kraipak vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1970 SC 150 has heldthat Administrative Authority like a selection Board should followprinciples of natural justice, however, it was brought to light, whileselection was made by the board, one of the members of which had been acandidate. The special selection board constituted under Regulation 3 ofIndian Forest Service (Recruitment) Rules (1966) framed under Rule 3 ofIndian Forest Service (Recruitment) Rules (1996). Admittedly one of themembers of the board himself was a candidate for selection, though hehad not taken part in the deliberations of the board and also at thetime of his own selection, he had taken part through out while makingselection of other candidates, including his rival candidates, who wereappearing before the Selection Board, hence, there was conflict betweenhis personal interest and official duty. In such circumstances, theHon'ble Apex Court held that there is likelihood of bias, hence,selection list prepared by the said board under Regulation 5 isviolative of principles of natural justice and the final recommendationsmade by UPSC was also held to be vitiated. In the decision, the Hon'bleApex Court has held at page number 156 as follows :"20...The concept of natural justice has undergone agreat deal of change in recent years. In the past itwas thought that it included just two rules, namely(1) no one shall be a judge in his own cause (Nemodebet esse judex propriacausa), and (2) no decisionshall be given against a party without affording hima reasonable hearing (audi alteram partem). Very soonthereafter a third rule was envisaged and that isthat quasi-judicial enquiries must be held in goodfaith, without bias and not arbitrarily orunreasonably. But in the course of years many moresubsidiary rules came to be added to the rules ofnatural justice. Till very recently it was theopinion of the courts that unless the authorityconcerned was required by the law under which itfunctioned to act judicially there was no room forthe application of the rules of natural justice. Thevalidity of that limitation is not questioned. If thepurpose of the rules of natural justice is to preventmiscarriage of justice one fails to see why thoserules should be made inapplicable to administrativeenquiries from quasi-judicial enquiries. Enquirieswhich were considered administrative at one time are https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ now being considered as quasi-judicial in character.Arriving at a just decision is the aim of both quasijudicial enquiries as well as administrativeenquiries..."24. In the instant case, the learned counsel appearing for the writpetitioners relied on the decision of the Constitutional Bench referredto above and submitted that the drawing officers, entrusted with thework are personally interested in the work of verifying the application,as they are members in any one of the unions / associations and in suchcircumstances, there is a likelihood of bias while discharging theirofficial duties and therefore, an independent officer in the cadre ofDivisional Superintendent be entrusted with the basic task ofscrutinizing the option / authorisation forms given by the Class-IIIemployees of the postal department in the matter of deciding therepresentative capacity of the unions are concerned. 25. In the light of the ruling of the Constitutional Bench of theHon'ble Apex Court, we are of the view that the aforesaid argumentsadvanced by the learned Senior counsel for the writ petitioners arelegally sustainable26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision, Chairman, SBI vs.All orissa State Bank Officers Assn, reported in 2003 (11) SCC 607, hasheld that neither the majority unions nor the minority unions have theright of representation in case of individual grievance. Though there isno common law right to any trade union to represent its members, whetherfor the purpose of collective bargaining or individual grievances of itsmembers. There is an inroad made under the common law only by specialstatutes. Either the special statute operates proprio vigore, or it doesnot. It is undisputed that Rule 24 (a) of the Verification Rules onwhich reliance has been placed has no binding effect. Nonetheless, ongeneral principles of equity, justice and fair play, it has been heldthat the minority trade union should also be afforded with anopportunity of ventilating individual grievances of its members, as perRule 24 of the Rules for Verification of Membership and Recognition ofTrade Unions Rules, 1994. In the said judgment, at page number 613, ithas been held as follows:"11. In our view, the contention urged by the counselfor the review petitioner has merit and needacceptable. There is no common law right of a tradeunion to represent its members, whether for purposesof collective bargaining or individual grievances ofmembers. This is an inroad made into the common lawby special statutes. Either, the special statuteoperates proprio vigore, or it does not. In thesituation before us, it is undisputed that Rule 24(a) on which the respondent Association and the HighCourt placed reliance, has no application. This isaccepted even in the judgment under review. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Nonetheless, on general principles of equity, justiceand fair play the judgment under review holds thatthe minority trade union should also be afforded anopportunity of ventilating individual grievances ofits members. "27. The respondent in the writ appeal has stated that their Union /Association, by name, All India Rural Postal Employees Union hadsubmitted its application, dated 29.12.1998. According to the appellant,the application, dated 29.12.1998 could not be processed, as theverification is for the year 2000. As contended by the learned counselappearing for the appellant, the application that had been submitted on29.12.1998 could not be considered for the verification in the year 2000.28. In the writ petition in W.P.No.20598 of 2000, the petitionerhas sought for an order to quash the order of the appellant in LetterNo.13-36/2000/SR, dated 29.06.2000 and the consequential order, dated15.09.2000 and direct the respondent therein to grant recognition tothe petitioner union, based on the application, dated 29.12.1998. Theletter, dated 29.06.2000 in Letter No.13-36/2000/SR has been sent by theGovernment of India, Ministry of Communication, Department of Posts,which reads as follows :"I am directed to refer to your letter No.nil, dated17.06.2000 on the above subject and to state that thelast date for submission of application forparticipation in the verification process for thepurpose of recognition under EDA (RA) Rules-1995 was31.05.2000. Your application has been received afterdue date i.e., on 21.06.2000. It is regretted to saythat your Association cannot be allowed toparticipate in the verification process this time."The Letter, dated 15.09.2000 is only a consequential communication,referring the earlier letter, dated 29.06.2000.29. The appellant has categorically stated that the last date forthe submission of the application for participation in the verificationprocess for the purpose of recognition, under EDA (RA) Rules 1995 was31.05.2000, but the application was received from the respondent /petitioner in the writ appeal, only on 21.06.2000 after the cut offdate. Even in the letter, the appellant has specifically stated that therespondents letter was dated 17.06.2000 and was received only on21.06.2000, after the cut off date.30. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant drew theattention of this Court to the Official Memorandum, dated 01.05.2000 inNo.13-34/98-SR issued by the Ministry of Communication, Department ofPosts, New Delhi, wherein at paragraph number 3, it is stated as follows:"3. All eligible unions / associations intending toparticipate in the verification process for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ recognition (including those who had applied earlier)should submit their applications complete in allrespects and accompanied by following documents to SRsection of this department latest by 31.05.2000.i. Memorandum of Associations.ii. Constitution / bye-laws of the Association.iii. List of office bearers andiv. Estimated membership of the Association."31. There is no material made available on the part of therespondent / writ petitioner in the writ appeal to show that theapplication was sent prior to the cut off date, 31.05.2000. Therefore,as contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, sincethe application had been sent long after the last date (cut off date),it is not practically possible for the appellant to process theapplication for the purpose to accord recognition to the association.32. On a perusal of the material papers available, we are of theconsidered view that the respondent union had sent its application forthe verification process only after the last date as contended by thelearned counsel for the appellant. Though the last date was 31.05.2000,the application, dated 17.06.2000 was sent only on 21.06.2000.Theapplication, dated 29.12.1998 could not be taken into consideration forthe year 2000. Therefore, the relief sought for in the writ petition toquash the order of the appellant in Letter No.13-36/2000/SR, dated29.06.2000 and the consequential order, dated 15.09.2000 and to directthe appellant to grant recognition to the respondent / petitioner union,based on the application, dated 29.12.1998 are not legally sustainable.33. As found by the learned single Judge, the impugned order in thewrit petition is not the one totally rejecting the respondent'sapplication, but only for the time being, since the application was notsubmitted before the cut off date and the reasons given by the appellantexpressing the inability not to accept the application for verificationprocess, after the cut off date is also acceptable and therefore, we areof the view that the writ appeal in W.A.No.2333 of 2003 has to beallowed and the impugned order, dated 09.04.2003 passed by the learnedsingle Judge has to be set aside.34. In the light of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble SupremeCourt reported in 1995 Supp (4) SCC 544 (cited supra), the plea of thepetitioners to have secret ballot in the process of recognition of tradeunions cannot be accepted. However, in the decision rendered byConstitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1970 SC150 (cited supra), it has been categorically held that even in case ofdischarging quasi judicial duty, there should be no bias on the part ofthe deciding authorities. In the instant case, it is not in dispute thatthe applications are scrutinized by drawing officers, who are alsomembers in any one of the unions. In such circumstances, there is alikelihood of acting on bias, so as to show some favouritism in favour https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of certain unions against the interest of other unions and therefore, weare of the considered view that the task to be entrusted to anindependent officer in the rank of Divisional Superintendent, assubmitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners andaccordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of and the impugned order,dated 12.02.1999 passed by the fifth respondent is set aside.35. The plea of the writ petitioners in W.P.Nos.4704, 4705, 4706and 4707 of 1999, for secret ballot cannot be accepted, in view of thedecision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 1995 Supp (4) SCC 544(cited supra). However, in the light of the ratio laid down by theConstitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1970 SC 150(cited supra), we direct the respondents, in order to follow andmaintain principles of natural justice, to entrust the verificationprocess towards recognition of the trade unions, to an independentofficer in the rank of Divisional Superintendent and scrutinize theoption / authorization forms in the presence of one representative fromeach of the unions. 36. Since the impugned order in the writ petition relates to theyear 1999, there could be lot of changes in the membership of theunions, on account of retirement and fresh appointments in the cadre ofemployees, who are eligible to be members of any union and therefore, inthe interest of justice, the respondents to the writ petitions aredirected to issue fresh notification towards the recognition of tradeunions, as per relevant Rules and decide the same within a period offour months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.37. With the above observations, the writ appeal in W.A.No.2333 of2003 is dismissed and the writ petitions are disposed of. Consequently,connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No order as to costs.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.tsvnTo1. All India Rural Postal Employees Union Rep. By its General Secretary S.Meetparaj Mascarnass, Koothakudi Post,Idinthakarai, Tirunelveli District. 2. Union of India Ministry of Communications Rep. by its Secretary Dak Bhavan, New Delhi – 110 001. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. Union of India Ministry of Home Affairs Rep. by its Secretary Department of Personnel, New Delhi.4. The Secretary Department of Posts, New Delhi – 110 001.5. The Director (Staff Relations) Department of Posts, Dak Bhavan, New Delhi – 110 001.6. The Chief Post Master General Tamil Nadu Circle, Chennai – 600 002.7. All India RMS/HMS Assistant Superintendents and Inspectors Association Rep. by its General Secretary, Chennai – 27. 8. All India Postal Employees Union Group C (CHQ) Rep. by its General Secretary Dada Ghosh Bhawan,No.1, Patel Road, New Delhi – 110 008.9. National Union of Postal Employees Group C (CHQ) Rep. by its Asst. General Secretary, 37, Gandhi Road, Jai Nagar, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 106.10. All India Postal Employees Union Postmen & Group D Rep. by its General Secretary 30/3D, Post Quarters,Kali Bari Marg, New Delhi – 110 001. 11. National Union of Postal Employees Postmen & Group D (CHQ) Rep. by its Asst. Treasurer No.15, V.M.Street, II Lane, Royapettah, Chennai – 14. + 1 cc to Mr.S.Udaya Kumar,Advocate, SR.No.157+ 4 ccs to M/s.Aiyar & Dolia,Advocate,SR.No.565 W.A.No.2333 of 2003and W.P.Nos. 4704 to 4707 of 1999 VSV(CO)EM/21.1.09