ORDER
Sanjay Yadav, J.
1. Initially the challenge in the present writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India was the action of respondent, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, of stopping the Structural meetings under the Industrial Relations Systems with the petitioner, a Trade Union registered under Trade Unions Act, 1926, at unit sub area and Company Head Quarter level. The petitioners also challenge the order/circular dated July 14, 2007 issued by General Manager (IR/legal) of the respondent Coalfields Ltd., whereof the check-off facility of the petitioners Union have been withdrawn. However, at the time of hearing the petitioners have confined their challenge to the issue of withdrawal of check-off facility.
2. The relevant facts briefly are that the petitioner is a Trade Union registered under the provisions of Trade Unions Act, 1926. Initially it was the Chhatisgarh Colliery Workers Federation, Manendragarh and thereafter underwent series of changes, it is now known as, Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Congress; claiming to have a mass following among the workers working in the Collieries of the State of Madhya Pradesh and State of Chhatisgarh. The petitioner since its inception continued to have dialogue with the respondent under Industrial Relation System and also continue to have check-off facility for deduction of membership fees of the Union from the workers under their declaration to the Management in commensurate with the provisions contained under Section 7(2)(kkk) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 since its introduction in SECL. The facility of Check-off has since not been extended to the petitioner and is confined to the affiliated Union of Central Trade Unions participating in the joint-bipartite committee for Coal Industry. Irked of such discriminatory treatment the petitioner has filed this petition, seeking quashment of the circular dated July 14, 2007.
3. The petitioner challenges its exclusion to avail the facility of check-off system on the ground of selective discrimination and that the same tantamount to unfair labour practice. In furtherance of its submission the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has to submit, that denial of facility is on the basis of petitioner being not affiliated to one of the Central Trade Unions which in turn are recognized as representative Unions under the Industrial Relation System in the SECL governed by the Code of Conduct decided by the affiliates of five Central Trade Unions representing in Joint consultative committee. It is contended that none of these Central Trade Unions are registered under the Central Trade Unions Regulations, 1938, whereas the extension of facilities is under Section 7(2)(kkk) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 is in favour of registered Unions which stipulates that, the deductions may be made from the wages with the written authorization of the employed persons, for payment of the fees payable by him for the membership of any Trade Union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. It is accordingly urged that confining the facility in favour of recognized Unions only is de hors the statutory provisions which permits deduction in favour of the registered Trade Union. It is contended that allowing the recognized Unions, the facility of check off system and denying the same to the petitioner is not only discriminatory but is also an unfair labour practice, because with non extension of the facility the respondent SECL has deprived the petitioner to have a say of the workers who are its members. It is also contended that if the description/fee of membership is not deducted under Clause 7(2)(kkk) of the Act of 1936, the Branch Union will not be functional as a result whereof a grave prejudice will be caused to workers who are members of the petitioner Union. Placing reliance on the communication dated November 30, 1986 entered into by the Personnel Manager, Hasdeo Area, it is contended that the check-off system is applicable in the SECL since 1986 and because of the SRO No. 1340 dated July 29, 1952 issued under the Mines Act, 1952 the provision of Payment of Wages Act, 1936 has been made applicable to all the classes of persons employed in the Mines, irrespective of salary cap. Refuting the counter contentions about membership, the petitioners further contend that about twenty one thousand of its members have filled in their authorization deposited with their respective officers for effecting deductions under Section 7(2)(kkk) of the Act of 1926. It is further urged that the petitioners in the present petition are not raking up the issue of its dispute with the other faction, i.e., the intervenes, because the same is subject matter of dispute which is pending in the High Court of Chhattisgarh. The petitioner reiterates that he has confined the issue to non-facilitating the petitioner Union of the Check-off system, which is not subjudice at any level before any judicial forum, the learned senior counsel, while summing up, reiterates that the petitioner society cannot be discriminated in respect of availing the check-off system available under Section 7(2)(kkk) of the Act of 1926.
4. The respondent SECL at the outset has raised the preliminary objection as to maintainability of the petition, contending, inter alia, that the petitioner being registered at Chhattisgarh and the circular under challenge since emanate from Bilaspur, no cause of action accrues within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh as would cause maintaining a writ petition instead of Madhya Pradesh. It is further contended that the petitioner has no locus standi to seek the mandamus for the facility of check-off system, because it is not affiliated to one of the recognized Central Trade Union Organization which in turn are recognized under the Code of Conduct being the representative Union under Industrial Relation prevalent in the SECL. It is further contended that the prevalent Industrial Relation System and the facilities extended therein is a policy matter, the same is beyond the scope of a judicial review. Denying any discrimination, it is contended on behalf of the respondent SECL that the petitioner Union has no right to claim the facility of check-off system and the respondent has no corresponding obligatory duty, therefore, it is urged, the concept of arbitrariness is not attracted. Placing reliance on the provisions contained in Section 7(2)(kkk) of the Act of 1926, it is contended that there is no Statutory duty cast on the respondents to provide the deduction to the petitioner. Accordingly, it is urged that the petition is devoid of substance even on merits and the dismissal thereof is sought.
5. Other respondents join the SECL in their submissions and seek dismissal of the petition on the very same grounds and on merits. Adding further, that the issue as to whether any Union, irrespective of its being recognized or not, affiliated or not have no statutory right to seek a mandamus for availing the check-off facility because of a non-corresponding statutory obligation on the employer has been settled at rest by a judgment rendered by the Court in W.P. 160/2003 : M.P. Koyala Khadan Mazdoor Panchayat Junnardeo and Ors. v. Western Coalfields Limited and Ors. decided on March 12, 2002.
6. Having regard to the respective submissions put forth by learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the issue which crops up for consideration is whether the respondent employer, i.e., SECL is justified in its action in extending the facility of check-off system to such Trade Unions which are affiliated to five central Trade unions, viz., Indian National Trade Union Congress/All India Trade Union Congress/Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh/Hindustan Mazdoor Sangh and the counsel of India Trade Union and denying the same to be petitioners which though registered is not a recognized Trade Union.
7. The preliminary objections raised by the respondents which are three fold, viz., that the cause of action having not accrued within the territory of State of Madhya Pradesh, no writ would lie before this Court and secondly, that the petitioner, being not affiliated to the Central Trade Unions as per Code of Conduct evolved by the joint consultative committee, has no locus standi to maintain a writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India and thirdly the check off system being a policy matter cannot be interfered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are taken up in seriatim.
8. It is observed that the present writ petition is by the President and Vice President of a registered Trade union which though has registered office in the State of Chhattisgarh, but its Members are working in various collieries spread over in State of Madhya Pradesh and the check off system which is in operation is made applicable at various units, sub-area level where the deductions as per declaration under Section 7(2)(kkk) of the Act of 1926 are effected. True it is that the circular under challenge has its origin at Bilaspur, which happens to be the Head Quarter of SECL but the effect it has is also over the Collieries located within the State of M.P. Thus, there exist a cause within the State of Madhya Pradesh as would give a right to take action. Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India provides:
(2)'The power conferred by Clause (1) to issue directions, order or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories.
9. In Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr. : AIR 2004 SC 2321 : (2004) 6 SCC 254, their Lordships were pleased to observe in paragraph 10 'keeping in view the expression used in Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, indisputably even if a small fraction of cause of action accrues within the jurisdiction of the Court, the Court will have the jurisdiction in the matter.' The contention that the availability of the check off system at respective collieries/unit sub-area is not an integral part of cause of action, has no substance because it is not the case of the respondents that there is a system of deducting the contribution only at the Head Quarter Level. The check-off system prevalent at various unit sub-area is an integral part of the cause of action which accrues out of circular under challenge. Having thus considered, the first objection as to maintainability of the petition on the territorial ground has no force and, therefore, rejected.
10. Regarding locus standi it is observed that the petitioner Union was being extended the facility of check-off system till it was affiliated with one of the Central Trade Unions and the same has been discontinued from the time of deaffiliation. The claim put-forth by the petitioner in the present petition is on the basis of it being a recognized Trade Union under Section 7(2)kkk) of the Act of 1926; therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court the petitioner has locus standi to maintain the petition.
11. Coming to the third objection regarding maintainability of the petition on the ground that the extending facility of check-off system in the SECL is a policy matter of the petitioner and since a policy decision is taken and Code of Conduct has been evolved by the process of joint consultative machinery, the same is beyond the scope of judicial review. This objection is dealt with taking into consideration merit of the case. In BALCO Employees Union (Regd.) v. Union of India : AIR 2002 SC 350 : (2002) 2 SCC 333 : 2002-I-LLJ-550, their Lordships while dwelling upon the aspect of judicial review in the policy matter were pleased to observe in paragraph 45 that 'it is neither within the domain of the Courts nor the scope of the judicial review to embark upon an enquiry as to whether a particular public policy is wise or whether better public policy can be evolved. Nor are our Courts inclined to strike down a policy at the behest of a petitioner merely because it has been urged that a different policy would have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or more logical.'
12. In the case at hand the facility of check-off system is an integral part of Industrial Relation System this fact can be borne out from the Code of Conduct which was evolved in accordance with the decision taken by the joint consultative committee in the meeting held on August 2, 1994 whereof the representatives of the affiliates of Central Trade Unions or the joint consultative committee, viz., INTUC, BMS, HMS, AITUC and CITU decided to adopt a Code of Conduct, whereunder Clauses 3, 4 and 6 are relevant for the present, which are in the following terms:
(3) This Code of Conduct shall be: applicable to all the Unions affiliated to above named five Central Trade Unions, as mentioned, in the preamble, which are also having representation in the JUCCI for Coal -Industry, as well.
(4) Breakaway group/expelled person(s) or any signatory Union shall not be entertained any encouraged by the signatory organization(s) to this Code. (Management and Trade Union).
(6) Deduction of membership subscription through wages of the Unions named above shall be made on the request of the Union concerned only, enclosing the consent of the employees, as per the provisions of Payment of Wages Act. Instructions will be issued by the Management, separately for the mode of deduction to be effected as per the above clause.
13. Perceptible it is that, the Code of Conduct was evolved with a purpose to ensure that disputes, demands/grievances are settled mutually to maintain peace and tranquility. Thus, a set policy is in vogue in SECL. Since 1986 and reiterated in the year 1994 that, only five Central Trade Unions and its affiliates are entitled for the check-off facility and admittedly the petitioner Union is not one such Unit. It is one thing to extend the facility under Section 7(2)(kkk) of the Act of 1936 and quite another to recognize a right of a Union while taking the policy decision. In BALCO Employees Union (Regd.) v. Union of India (supra) their Lordships while emphasizing the aspect that in case of policy, the employees may suffer to certain extent, but such suffering should be taken to be incidence of service, were pleased to observe at p. 565 of LLJ:
48. Merely because the workmen may have protection of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, by regarding BALCO as a State, it does not mean that the erstwhile sole shareholder, viz., Government had to give the workers prior notice of hearing before deciding to disinvest. There is no principle of natural justice which requires prior notice and hearing to persons who are generally affected as a class by an economic policy decision of the Government. If the abolition of a post pursuant to a policy decision does not attract the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution as held in State of Haryana v. Shri Des Raj Sangar : AIR 1976 SC 1199 : (1976) 2 SCC 844 : 1976-I-LLJ-301, on the same parity of reasoning, the policy of disinvestments cannot be faulted if as a result thereof the employees lose their rights or protection under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution...
In Union of India and Anr. v. International Trading Co. and Anr. : AIR 2003 SC 3983 : (2003) 5 SCC 437, their Lordships were pleased to observe:
21. ...The decision maker has the choice in the balancing of the pros and cons relevant to the change in policy. It is, therefore, clear that the choice of policy is for the decision maker and not the Court. The legitimate substantive expectation merely permits the Court to find out if the change of policy which is the cause for defeating the legitimate expectation is irrational or perverse or one which no reasonable person could have made. A claim based on merely legitimate expectation without anything more cannot ipso facto give a right. Its uniqueness lies in the fact that it covers the entire span of time; present, past and future. How significant is the statement that today is tomorrow's yesterday. The present is as we experience it, the past is a present memory and future is a present expectation. For legal purposes, expectation is not same as anticipation. Legitimacy of an expectation can be inferred only if it is found on the sanction of law.
14. Having thus considered this Court is of the opinion that there is no illegality committed by the respondents SECL in not extending the facility of check-off system to the petitioner union.
15. In the result, petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However no costs.