It is covered by Hon'ble Apex Court rulings in Smt. Damayanti Naranga v. UOI Ors., reported in AIR

Tribunal, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the present subject matter of the dispute that whether the applicant is a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act and is entitled to participate in Labour Union activities within the Government organization is not a service matter and is not a subject matter to be brought before the Tribunal and consequently, as noticed, dismissed the Original Application for lack of jurisdiction.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner made vehement submissions that Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the Original Application as not maintainable inasmuch as another Bench of the Tribunal at Bangalore in Original Application No. 170/00241/2017 in its order dated 24.07.2018, has already quashed the said impugned order dated 30.10.2014. He submitted that the said matter was decided by the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal well before the same was decided by the Allahabad Bench and, therefore, there was no reason for the Tribunal to deny the relief, however, instead of granting similar relief, the petition has been decided for purported lack of jurisdiction which order deserves to be set aside.

5. By order dated 09.08.2024, this Court, on the submissions made and noticing that the order dated 30.10.2014 had been quashed by the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal, noticed that in the counter affidavit filed to the petition qua the said order, the only plea raised is that the same was matter of record and, therefore, counsel for the respondents was granted time to find out in case the order dated 24.07.2018 passed by Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal has been challenged by the respondents as in case the said order had attained finality, the order impugned before the Tribunal at Allahabad already stood quashed.

6. On 10.09.2024, it was indicated that the information is being gathered and counsel for the petitioner submitted that despite making the efforts to find out the status on-line, it was apparent that the said order was neither questioned before Karnataka High Court nor there was any indication about pendency of the same before Hon'ble Supreme Court and, therefore, another opportunity was granted to the counsel for the respondents.

7. On 04.10.2024, it was again submitted by the counsel for the respondents that he could not obtain instructions, as required and, therefore, it was ordered that the order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore would be taken as having attained finality and parties may make their submissions on the next date.

8. Today, counsel for the petitioner reiterated the submissions made that by the order passed by Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal, the order impugned dated 30.10.2014 already stood quashed and, therefore, the respondents are bound to permit the petitioner to participate in Union activities.

9. Counsel for the respondents submitted that the Tribunal has dismissed the O.A. on the ground of lack of jurisdiction which cannot be faulted, however, fairly conceded that the order dated

30.10.2014 stands quashed by the order of the Tribunal at Bangalore.

10. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

11. Undisputed facts are that the order dated 30.10.2024, which was questioned before the Tribunal at Allahabad, had already been quashed by the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal by its order dated

24.07.2018. As has come on record, the order became final. The Tribunal at Bangalore in its order dated 24.07.2018, inter alia, observed and came to the following conclusion: "Heard. The matter is in a very short compass. The question is whether can an Office Superintendent be a member of a Trade Union. As the respondents object to it on the ground that the Office Superintendent being in-charge of certain type of employees, must be held to be part of supervisory agent and management and therefore cannot come under the ambit of Trade Union Act 1926. But then can it be said that if an LDC is in-charge of an establishment, then that particular LDC is in-charge of all the MTS also. Therefore, a supervisory function is attributed to the LDC also and can the LDC be denied the eligibility of being a Member of a Trade Union, obviously it cannot be. Besides, Senior most officers like All India Services also have Unions or Associations as the case may be. Both function in the same way or line. Therefore, there is no relevance or merit in their saying that the Office Superintendent by virtue of being controller of some other employees below her, ceases her right under Trade Union Act, 1926.

2. It is covered by Hon'ble Apex Court rulings in Smt. Damayanti Naranga vs. UOI & Ors., reported in AIR 1971 SCC 966, O.K. Ghosh & anr. vs. E.X. Joseph, reported in AIR 1963 SCC 812, Kameshwar Prasad & ors. vs. State of Bihar & anr., reported in AIR 1962 SCC 1166, Telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh & anr. vs. State of Bihar & ors., reported in AIR 1989 SCC 1965. It is covered in Ram Avatar Sharma & ors. vs. State of Harayana & anr., reported in AIR 1985 SCC 915 and also in Management of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vs. KSRTC Staff & Workers Federation & anr., reported in AIR 1999 1059.

3. Therefore, Annexure A-4 is quashed and it is hereby declared that the applicant can while being an Office Superintendent be a member of Trade Uniion also.

4. The OA is allowed. No order as to costs."

12. Once the order, which was impugned before the Tribunal and had effect all over the Country, had been quashed by the Tribunal at Bangalore and the same was not confined to the applicant therein, the respondents, even otherwise, were bound to give effect to the same qua the similarly situated employees across the Country. In any case, once the OA was filed by the petitioners, there was apparently no reason to question the maintainability of the petition, and Tribunal at Allahabad refusing to exercise jurisdiction.

13. In view of the above fact situation, the writ petition is allowed. The order passed by Tribunal dated 03.05.2023 cannot be sustained, the same is therefore quashed and set aside. The O.A. is allowed. As the impugned Office Order dated 30.10.2014 already stands quashed, the same would not come in the way of the petitioners in remaining members of the employees union, if they are otherwise eligible. Order Date :- 11.3.2025 P.Sri. (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) PUNEET SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Tribunal, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the present subject matter of the dispute that whether the applicant is a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act and is entitled to participate in Labour Union activities within the Government organization is not a service matter and is not a subject matter to be brought before the Tribunal and consequently, as noticed, dismissed the Original Application for lack of jurisdiction.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner made vehement submissions that Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the Original Application as not maintainable inasmuch as another Bench of the Tribunal at Bangalore in Original Application No. 170/00241/2017 in its order dated 24.07.2018, has already quashed the said impugned order dated 30.10.2014. He submitted that the said matter was decided by the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal well before the same was decided by the Allahabad Bench and, therefore, there was no reason for the Tribunal to deny the relief, however, instead of granting similar relief, the petition has been decided for purported lack of jurisdiction which order deserves to be set aside.

5. By order dated 09.08.2024, this Court, on the submissions made and noticing that the order dated 30.10.2014 had been quashed by the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal, noticed that in the counter affidavit filed to the petition qua the said order, the only plea raised is that the same was matter of record and, therefore, counsel for the respondents was granted time to find out in case the order dated 24.07.2018 passed by Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal has been challenged by the respondents as in case the said order had attained finality, the order impugned before the Tribunal at Allahabad already stood quashed.

6. On 10.09.2024, it was indicated that the information is being gathered and counsel for the petitioner submitted that despite making the efforts to find out the status on-line, it was apparent that the said order was neither questioned before Karnataka High Court nor there was any indication about pendency of the same before Hon'ble Supreme Court and, therefore, another opportunity was granted to the counsel for the respondents.

7. On 04.10.2024, it was again submitted by the counsel for the respondents that he could not obtain instructions, as required and, therefore, it was ordered that the order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore would be taken as having attained finality and parties may make their submissions on the next date.

8. Today, counsel for the petitioner reiterated the submissions made that by the order passed by Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal, the order impugned dated 30.10.2014 already stood quashed and, therefore, the respondents are bound to permit the petitioner to participate in Union activities.

9. Counsel for the respondents submitted that the Tribunal has dismissed the O.A. on the ground of lack of jurisdiction which cannot be faulted, however, fairly conceded that the order dated

30.10.2014 stands quashed by the order of the Tribunal at Bangalore.

10. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

11. Undisputed facts are that the order dated 30.10.2024, which was questioned before the Tribunal at Allahabad, had already been quashed by the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal by its order dated

24.07.2018. As has come on record, the order became final. The Tribunal at Bangalore in its order dated 24.07.2018, inter alia, observed and came to the following conclusion: "Heard. The matter is in a very short compass. The question is whether can an Office Superintendent be a member of a Trade Union. As the respondents object to it on the ground that the Office Superintendent being in-charge of certain type of employees, must be held to be part of supervisory agent and management and therefore cannot come under the ambit of Trade Union Act 1926. But then can it be said that if an LDC is in-charge of an establishment, then that particular LDC is in-charge of all the MTS also. Therefore, a supervisory function is attributed to the LDC also and can the LDC be denied the eligibility of being a Member of a Trade Union, obviously it cannot be. Besides, Senior most officers like All India Services also have Unions or Associations as the case may be. Both function in the same way or line. Therefore, there is no relevance or merit in their saying that the Office Superintendent by virtue of being controller of some other employees below her, ceases her right under Trade Union Act, 1926.

2. It is covered by Hon'ble Apex Court rulings in Smt. Damayanti Naranga vs. UOI & Ors., reported in AIR 1971 SCC 966, O.K. Ghosh & anr. vs. E.X. Joseph, reported in AIR 1963 SCC 812, Kameshwar Prasad & ors. vs. State of Bihar & anr., reported in AIR 1962 SCC 1166, Telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh & anr. vs. State of Bihar & ors., reported in AIR 1989 SCC 1965. It is covered in Ram Avatar Sharma & ors. vs. State of Harayana & anr., reported in AIR 1985 SCC 915 and also in Management of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vs. KSRTC Staff & Workers Federation & anr., reported in AIR 1999 1059.

3. Therefore, Annexure A-4 is quashed and it is hereby declared that the applicant can while being an Office Superintendent be a member of Trade Uniion also.

4. The OA is allowed. No order as to costs."

12. Once the order, which was impugned before the Tribunal and had effect all over the Country, had been quashed by the Tribunal at Bangalore and the same was not confined to the applicant therein, the respondents, even otherwise, were bound to give effect to the same qua the similarly situated employees across the Country. In any case, once the OA was filed by the petitioners, there was apparently no reason to question the maintainability of the petition, and Tribunal at Allahabad refusing to exercise jurisdiction.

13. In view of the above fact situation, the writ petition is allowed. The order passed by Tribunal dated 03.05.2023 cannot be sustained, the same is therefore quashed and set aside. The O.A. is allowed. As the impugned Office Order dated 30.10.2014 already stands quashed, the same would not come in the way of the petitioners in remaining members of the employees union, if they are otherwise eligible. Order Date :- 11.3.2025 P.Sri. (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) PUNEET SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad