Central Organisation of TamilnaduElectricity Employees (CITU) v. Tamilnadu Electricity Board & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 06.01.2012CORAM:THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.CHANDRUW.P.No.18826 of 2007& M.P.No.2 of 2007Central Organisation of TamilnaduElectricity Employees (CITU)Rep.by its General Secretary27, Mosque Street,Chepauk, Chennai .. PetitionerVs.1.Tamilnadu Electricity Boardrep.by its Secretary800, Anna SalaiChennai 22.Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Workers Progressive UnionRep.by its General SecretaryElectricity Avenue800, Anna SalaiChennai 23.Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Engineers AssociationRep.by its General SecretaryElectricity Avenue800, Anna SalaiChennai 24.Bharathiya Electricity Employees Federation rep.by its General SecretaryElectricity Avenue800, Anna SalaiChennai 2 .. Respondents Prayer :Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the recordsof the 1st respondent relating to the proceedings in (Permanent) B.P.(CH) No.77 (Secretariat Branch) dated 28th March 2007 read with orderdated 9th May 2007 in (Permanent) B.P (Ch) No.111 (Secretariat Branch) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and quash the said orders and consequently direct the 1st respondentto forbear from permitting deduction of subscription/donation totrade unions from the salary of the employees without a negotiatedsettlement with the recognized and centrally affiliated unions of theBoard.For Petitioner :: Mr.M.Muthupandian For Respondents :: Ms.R.Varalakshmi for R1Mr.Balan Haridas for R2O R D E RThe Writ Petition is filed by the Central Organisation of TamilNadu Electricity Employees (COTEE) affiliated to CITU. In this WritPetition, the petitioner union challenged the validity of the BoardProceedings in (Permanent) B.P.(CH) No.77 (Secretariat Branch) dated28th March 2007 along with the Board proceedings in (Permanent) B.P(Ch) No.111 (Secretariat Branch) dated 9th May 2007. By these twoproceedings, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board decided as a matter ofprinciple to deduct yearly subscription from willing employees ofvarious unions and associations if they make a specific request tothe Board and the deduction should start from May 2007 to June 2007.It was also indicated that the willing employees should give writtenauthorization to the Pay Drawing Officer concerned and in such anevent, the detailed terms and conditions in this regard will beissued by the Board.2. The contention raised by the petitioner trade union asreflected in their representation sent to the Board dated 7.5.2007was that the Board should not act on the basis of the requests madeby their two trade unions and there must be negotiable settlement onthis issue and the settlement should reach from the recognized andcertainly affiliated unions and until such time, no deduction shouldbe made by the Board.3. The Writ Petition was admitted on 29.5.2007. Pending theWrit Petition, in the application for interim stay, only Notice wasissued. On notice from this Court, the 2nd respondent trade unionaffiliated to the Labour Progressive Front (LPF) had filed a counteraffidavit dated 30.6.2007. The 1st respondent Board has also filed acounter affidavit dated 10.7.2008. It was stated by the Board thatdetailed discussions were held with the Unions and only afterexamining the pros and cons of the issue, the Board Proceedings cameto be issued. This is similar to the facilities available in otherPublic Sector Enterprise like Transport Corporation. It was alsostated that if the petitioner union is so willing, they can alwaysthe said facility. This concession was issued only as a facility on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the request made by the trade unions. It was further stated that therecovery for union subscription or deduction from the salary of themembers will be made only on their willingness.4. The issue raised in this Writ Petition is no longer resintegra. A Division Bench of this Court vide the judgment in StateBank Staff Union, State Bank of India Officer's Association vs. StateBank of India, Union of India, etc., reported in 1989(1) LLJ 554upheld the similar scheme extended by the Central Government. Inparagraph No.26, it was observed as follows:"26. We are also inclined to accept the argument advanced byMr.D.Murugesan and Mr.Chandu that Section 7(2)(kkk) of thePayment of Wages Act supports the case of the respondentsthat the check-off facility should not be restricted to themembers of the recognized unions alone. Section 7(2)(kkk) ofthe said Act reads as follows:-7. Deductions which may be made from wages:-(1) xxx(2) Deductions from the wages of an employed personshall shall be made only in accordance with theprovisions of this Act, and may be of the followingkinds, namely:(a) to (kk) xxx xxx(kkk) deductions made, with the writtenauthorization of the employed person, for paymentof the fees payable by him for the membership ofany trade union registered under the Trade UnionsAct, 1926."The format to be given by each individual employee (alsoextracted above) is in conformity with the above provisionsin the Payment of Wages Act. Therefore, if really theoption is left to the individual employee, the question ofextending the facility to the unions, recognized or not,pales into significance. Viewed from this angle, in ourview, the petitioners have no case at all to seek the reliefof mandamus or certiorari, especially when they could notrest their case on any statutory provision. We are notimpressed with the arguments of the learned counsel for thepetitioners that by extending the facility to all Unions,the Bank Managements commit unfair labour practice withinthe meaning of clause 2(b) of Schedule V of the IndustrialDisputes Act. We are also not impressed by the argumentthat by extending the facility to registered unions, theexclusive right enjoyed by the recognized unions has been https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ taken away arbitrarily. This argument is based on amisconception about the right of check-off facility. Asnoticed earlier, this facility can be given effect to ifonly the concerned individual employee seeks the samevoluntarily. This basic factor has not been borne in mindby the petitioners in understanding the system of check-offfacility."5. The very same question came to be raised by another tradeunion in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Engineer's Sangam rep.byits Secretary, Madurai Region vs. the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board inW.P(MD) No.4825 of 2007 dated 12.6.2007. This Court after referringto the earlier Division Bench judgment in the last two paragraphsheld as follows:"6.....On the basis of the above discussion, we hold that thedecision to extend the check-off facility to all registeredunions does not suffer from any infirmity requiring to becorrected by Proceedings under Article 226 of theConstitution.7.In view of the above circumstances, there is nosubstance in this Writ Petition and hence, the Writ Petitionstands dismissed. Consequently, the connected M.Ps., arealso dismissed."6. In the light of the same, there is no case made out. Hence,the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. The connectedMiscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/ Assistant Registrar /True Copy/ Sub Assistant RegistrarajrTo1.SecretaryTamilnadu Electricity Board800, Anna SalaiChennai 2 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.General SecretaryTamil Nadu Electricity Board Workers Progressive UnionElectricity Avenue800, Anna SalaiChennai 23.General SecretaryTamil Nadu Electricity Board Engineers AssociationElectricity Avenue800, Anna SalaiChennai 2+ 1 C.C. TO M/S. Varalakshmi, Sr.No.2180+ 1 C.c. To Mr. M. Muthupandian Sr.No.2007+ 1 C.C. To Mr. Balan Haridash Sr.No.1338W.P.No.18826 of 2007MRD[CO]KS 23/01/2012