ORDER
P. Sathasivam, J.
1. By consent of all parties main writ petition itself is taken up for disposal. Ranipet Greaves Employees Union and Greaves Labour Union have filed the above writ petition questioning the order of the Labour Officer-I, Vellore in No.129, NO. 1926/2001 dated 08-03-2002 in and by which he conveyed his inability to conduct Union elections.
2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:
Both the petitioners are Trade Union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. The petitioner Union believes in democratic election, electing the workers representatives by all the workers in the industry. The Greaves Limited has a factory at Ranipet, manufacturing diesel engines for Auto Rickshaws and pump sets. It employs about 350 permanent workers. The first petitioner union has on its roll 200 members and the 2nd petitioner union has 100 membership. Originally the factory at Ranipet was under the control and management of Enfield India Limited. There was a settlement dated 9-8-90 under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disptues Act between the management and the several workers' unions facilitating election by secret ballot to elect workers representatives. As per the said 12(3) settlement, election would be held once in two years, under the supervision of the Labour Officer. This representative body alone would get recognition from the management and this body alone has the right to negotiate with the management. Election has been held once in two years from 1990 onwards in accordance with the said settlement, and the elected representatives alone had been dealing with the management. After the taken over by the Greaves Limited from the Enfield India Limited, elections were held in the year 1994, 1997 and 1999 to elect the workers representatives in accordance with 12(3) settlement dated 9-8-90. The term of office, for the workers representatives elected in the year 1999 came to an end in the year 2001 and thereafter no election has been held. The Greaves Limited Management is holding talks with representative body whose term of office has already come to an end. Therefore, the petitioner union sent a letter dated 24-9-2001 to the Labour Commissioner and the Labour Officer requesting them to conduct the union election as per 12 (3) settlement dated 9-8-90. The Greaves management also by its letter dated 4-12-2001, requested the Labour Officer to conduct election for union recognition under his supervision. The Labour Officer instead of conducting election as per the terms and conditions of the 12(3) settlement dated 9-8-90, has passed the impugned order dated 8-3-2002 refusing to conduct the election on the sole ground that two other unions have refused to participate in the election. The reason given by the second respondent for not conducting union election is arbitrary, unjust and against the basic principles underlying in the Industrial Disputes Act. Hence the present writ petition.
3. The impleaded respondents 3 and 4 have filed a counter affidavit wherein it is stated that 2nd respondent is only a conciliation officer. The Management has also entered into only 12 (3) Settlement. The petitioners have furnished inflated claims of membership in the affidavit. The earlier experience clearly indicates that holding of elections invariably lead to industrial unrest. No doubt, the management is willing to grant a substantial wage hike. In view of the pendency of the writ petition and interim order everything has been stalled.
4. In the light of the above pleadings, I have heard Mr. N.G.R. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner Unions and Mr. G.R. Swaminathan, learned counsel for the contesting respondents 3 and 4.
5. It is not in dispute that a settlement was arrived at between the management and the workers' union on 9-8-90 under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act regarding union election facilitating election for secret ballot to elect workers representatives. It is also not disputed that as per the said 12 (3) settlement, election would be held once in 3 years under the supervision of the Labour Officer. It is also not disputed that this representative body alone would get recognition from the management and this body alone has right to negotiate with the management. It is brought to my notice that after the factory at Ranipet was taken over by the Greaves Limited from the Enfield India Limited with all its rights and liabilities, elections were held in the year 1994, 1997 and 1999 to elect the workers' representatives in accordance with 12(3) settlement dated 9-8-90. It is the definite case of the petitioner Union that the term of office for the workers representatives elected in the year 1999 came to an end in the year 2001 and thereafter no election has been held. It is the claim of the respondents 2 and 3 that there are four different unions in the Greaves Limited and in all occasions whenever there is a dispute or settlement, the management used to call all the 4 unions. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the respondents has brought to my notice a letter dated 20-8-2003 issued by the Greaves Limited informing that it is the policy of the management involving all the 4 unions in the negotiation process. By pointing out the said letter, learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4 would contend that the Labour Officer, Vellore I/second respondent herein is fully justified in rejecting the request of the petitioner for conducting election for Unions. First of all, the letter of the management dated 20-8-2003 was issued recently, i.e., in any event, subsequent to the filing of the writ petition. In view of the fact that the management has not been impleaded as one of the respondents in the above writ petition, for the reasons best known to them, the management has not taken care to get themselves impleaded to put-forth their stand before this Court. Further, this letter was not addressed to the Labour Officer or to any one of the unions. In such a circumstance, I am not inclined to rely on the said letter brought before this Court at the time of argument. On the other hand, Mr. N.G.R. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, has brought to my notice the relevant clauses in the 12(3) Settlement dated 09-08-90 which show election has to be held once in two years under the supervision of the Labour Officer. It is also clear that only the representative body would get recognition from the management and the said body alone has the right to negotiate with the management. It is also brought to my notice that the term of office for the workers representatives elected in the year 1999 came to an end in the year 2001 and thereafter no election has been held. In this regard, it is relevant to refer the request made by the management Greaves Limited in their letter dated 29-12-94 to the Labour Officer, Vellore I. In the letter, the management after referring to the existence of 3 unions namely Ranipet Greaves Employees Union, Greaves Workers Union and Greaves Mazdoor Sangam and after highlighting that because of various unions, they are not in a position to run the industry conducively, peacefully and without any disturbance, requested the Labour Officer to conduct election among the workers and select a representative body for the benefit of the workers as well as smooth functioning of the factory at Ranipet. The said letter finds a place at page 5 of the typed-set of papers filed by the petitioner. In the light of the stand of the management, in view of various clauses in the 12(3) settlement dated 9-8-90 regarding union election and of the fact that elections were held in the year 1994, 1997 and 1999 and no election has been held in 2001, I am of the view that the Labour Officer committed an error in rejecting the request of the petitioner instead of conducting election as per the terms and conditions of 12 (3) settlement dated 9-8-1990.
6. It has been held in a series of decisions by the Apex Court that Mandamus cannot be denied on the ground that the duty to be enforced is not imposed by the statute, that Mandamus is a very wide remedy which must be easily available to reach injustice wherever it is found and that technicalities should not come in the way of granting that relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further, to have industrial peace and harmony, the trade union has to exist by following democratic means and norms. One of the methods is to have Office Bearers duly elected under the bye-laws. In this case it is not disputed that 12 (3) settlement dated 9-8-90 enables election to the union once in two years under the supervision of the Labour Officer and, in fact, elections were held in the previous years namely 1994, 1997 and 1999 and no election has been held after 2001. I am unable to understand the attitude of the 2nd respondent in rejecting the request of the petitioner which is totally different. In similar circumstances, K.S. Bakthavatsalam, J., in Writ Petition No. 6415 of 1991 dated 2-7-1992, directed the Labour Officer to conduct election for Office Bearers and Executive Committee Members of the workers union. Similar directions were also issued by K. Govindarajan, J., in Writ Petition No. 8721/1998 dated 04-02-1999 and K. Raviraja Pandian, J., in Writ Petition Nos. 2551 of 1999 etc., batch dated 12-02-2001. It is also relevant to refer a decision of the apex Court in F.C.I. Staff Union v. Food Corporation of India, reported in : (1995)IILLJ272SC wherein Their Lordships have held that in an industry or a concern more than one unions exist, it is but proper to conduct secret ballot and elect representatives to represent them before the Labour Officer or before the management as well as officers prescribed under the Act. In the said decision, the Supreme Court after prescribing norms and procedures, directed the Food Corporation of India to hold elections in accordance with the procedures mentioned by them.
7. In the light of what is stated above, the impugned order of the second respondent dated 08-03-2002 is quashed and respondents 1 and 2 are directed to conduct the union elections to elect a representative body of the workers to accord representatives in the Greaves Limited Factory at Ranipet within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.