Bangali Raje and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- orders.k. chawla, j.1. the question raised in this writ petition is about the validity of the constitution of a works committee which has been constituted for an industrial establishment.2. there is an industrial establishment of garrison engineer, m.e.s., morar, gwalior belonging to central government employing more than hundred workmen. a works committee functions in that establishment. the term of existing works committee expired on july 8, 1992. a new, works committee for the two year term of 1992-94 was constituted by the garrison engineer by an order dated july 29, 1992 (annexure p-1). by that order, seven representatives of the workmen and seven representatives of the employer were nominated to the works committee by the garrison engineer, who included himself as chairman of the works committee to preside over the meetings of the committee. it was also provided in that order that in his absence on leave etc., an officer officiating in his place would preside over the meeting. in effect, there were 7 representatives of the employees and 8 representatives of the employer, inclusive of the chairman. it is this constitution of the works committee which is challenged in this writ petition.3. the case of the petitioners, who are four of the workmen of the said establishment, is that representatives of the workmen could not have been nominated to the works committee by the garrison engineer. the said nomination was done by garrison engineer in collusion with the office bearers of the trade union in that establishment. the proper course was that action should have been taken to get representatives of the workmen elected. secondly, it was also urged that the respective representatives of the workmen and employer should have been equal; but what had happened was that representatives of the employer were one more in number than the representatives of the workmen, i.e. 8 to 7. the constitution of the works committee for that reason also was illegal. prayer was made for quashing of the order dated july 29, 1992 (annexure p-l) by which the said works committee was constituted for the term 1992-94 and direction was also sought for holding of the elections for representatives of the workmen. an application for ad interim writ was also made to restrain the garrison engineer from holding any meeting of the newly constituted works committee.4. a reply was filed on behalf of the respondents to the application of grant of ad interim writ. it was urged in the reply that the newly constituted works committee had been legally and validly constituted. with the consent of the parties, the matter was finally heard.5. the constitution of works committee for an industrial establishment has been provided for in section 3 of the industrial disputes act, 1947, which reads as under:-'3. works committee. (1) in the case of any industrial establishment in which one hundred or more workmen are employed or have been employed on any day in the preceding twelve months, the appropriate government may by general or special order require the employer to constitute in the prescribed manner a works committee consisting of representatives of employer and workmen engaged in the establishment so however that the number of representatives of workmen on the committee shall not be less than the number of representatives of the employer. the representatives of the workmen shall be chosen in the prescribed manner from among the workmen engaged in the establishment and in consultation with their trade union, if any, registered under the indian trade union act, 1926 (xvi of 1926).(2) it shall be the duty of the works committee to promote measures for securing and preserving amity and good relations between the employer and workmen and, to that end, to comment upon matters of their common interest or concern and endeavour to compose any material difference of opinion in respect of such matters.'it will be seen that the works committee has to be constituted in the prescribed manner. it is because of this that rules have been framed laying down the manner in which the works committee will be constituted. these rules are rules 38 to 57 contained in part vii of industrial disputes (central) rules, 1957. rules which are of immediate relevance are rules 38 to 43 which are reproduced below:-'38. constitution. -- any employer to whom an order made under sub-section (1) of section 3 relates shall forthwith proceed to constitute a works committee in the manner prescribed in this part.39. number of members. the number of members constituting the committee shall be fixed so as to afford representation to the 5 various categories, groups and class of workmen engaged in, and to the sections, shops or departments of the establishment:provided that the total number of members shall not exceed twenty;provided further that the number of representatives of the workmen shall not be less than the number of representatives of the employer.40. representatives of employer. subject to the provisions of these rules, the representatives of the employers shall be nominated 2 by the employer and shall as far as possible be officials in direct touch with or associated with the working of the establishment.41. consultation with trade unions (1) where any workmen of an establishment are members of a registered trade union the employer shall ask the union to inform him in writing-- (a) how many of the workmen are members of the union; and(b) how their membership is distributedamong the sections, shops or departments ofthe establishment.(2) where an employer has reason to believethat the information furnished to him undersub-rule (1) by any trade union is false, hemay, after informing the union, refer the matter to the assistant labour commissioner(central) concerned for his decision, and theassistant labour commissioner (central),after hearing the parties, shall decide the matter and his decision shall be final. 42. group of workmen's representatives. on receipt of the information called for under rule 41, the employer shall provide for the election of workmen's representative on the committee in two groups-- (1) those to be elected by the workmen of the establishment, who are members of the registered trade union or unions, and(2) those to be elected by the workmen of the establishment, who are not members of the registered trade union or unions,bearing the same proportion to each other as the union members in the establishment bear to the non-members:provided that where more than half the workmen are members of the union or any one of the unions, no such division shall be made:provided further that where a registered trade union neglects or fails to furnish the information called for under sub-rule (1) of rule 41 within one month of the date of the notice requiring it to furnish such information such union shall for the purpose of this rule be treated as if it did not exist:provided further that where any reference has been made by the employer under sub-rule (2) of rule 41, the election shall be held on receipt of the decision of assistant labour commissioner (central). 43. electoral constituencies.-- where under rule 42 the workmen's representatives are to be elected in two groups, the workmen entitled to vote shall be divided into two electoral constituencies, the one consisting of those who are members of a registered trade union and the other of those who are not: provided that the employer may, if he thinks fit, sub-divide the electoral constituency or constituencies, as the case may be, and direct that workmen shall vote in either by groups, sections, shops or departments.' 6. it will be seen on a reading of above rules that rule 39 contemplates that total members constituting a works committee shall not exceed 20 and further that the number of representatives of the workmen shall not be less than the number of the representatives of the employer. it was wrongly interpreted on behalf of the petitioners that this rule requires that the representatives of the workmen and of the employer shall be equal. the true legal position appears to be that their respective number may or may not be equal, but if it is unequal, the rule steps in and says that the number of representatives of the workmen shall not be less than the number of representatives of the employer. in other ords, the number of the representatives of workmen may either be equal or more than the i representatives of the employer. in no case the number of representatives of workmen shall be less than the number of representatives of the employer. rule 40 contemplates that the representatives of the employer shall be nominated by the employer and shall as far as possible be officials in direct touch with or associated with the working of the establishment. rule 41 envisages that employer shall ask the registered trade union of the workmen in the concerned establishment to inform the employer in writing how many of the workmen are members of that union and how their membership is distributed among the sections, shops or departments of the establishment. in other words, the employer asks the registered trade union to supply him nominal roll of members of the trade union. rule 42 then provides that after the receipt of the said information from the registered trade union, the employer shall provide for election of the representatives of the workmen on the works committee in two groups -- (1) those to be elected by the workmen who are members of the registered trade union or unions, and (2) those to be elected by workmen who are not members of registered union or unions. it is further provided that the number of two groups should bear the same proportion to each other as the union members in the establishment bear to the non-members. the first proviso to this rule con-templates that where more than half the workmen are members of the union or any one of the unions, the above kind of division in two groups shall not be made. this shows that where in an industrial establishment the majority of the workers are in one union, the distribution of the elected representatives as provided in rule 42 in two groups will not be necessary. the two more provisos to rule 42 are not of immediate relevance in this case. rule 43 contemplates that where representatives of the workmen are to be elected in two groups as contemplated in rule 42, the workmen entitled to vote shall be divided into two electoral constituencies, one consisting of members of registered trade union and the other of those who are not. the proviso to rule 43 further provides that the employer may in the said situation sub-divide the electoral constituency or constituencies, as the case may be, and direct that workmen shall vote in either by groups, sections, shops or departments.7. it was not disputed before us that m.e.s. employees union, jabalpur area gwalior branch, is a registered trade union of the establishment in question and that it has more than half the workmen of the establishment who are its members. the nominal roll of its members was sent by this union to the employer vide letter (annexure r/2). that nominal roll gave ames of 530 workmen out of 598 workmen employed in the establishment. in other words, this union has 530 out of 598 employees as its members. it has, what may be called, road-roller majority. on this basis it was urged by shri n.p. mittal, learned counsel for the respondents, that the employer was led to believe on a reading of the above rules that nomination of the representatives of the workmen could be done in consultation with the trade union which enjoyed the majority membership. it was for this reason that the employer sent a letter to the registered trade union (annexure r-3) asking the union to intimate whether the union desired to hold elections or nominate the members of the works committee. thereafter the registered trade union sent a list of 7 members to be nominated; vide letter annexure r/4. it was in these circumstances, that the garrison engineer by the impugned order dated july 29, 1992, (annexure p-1) had come to nominate 7 representatives of the workmen as recommended by the registered trade union. there was no question of the garrison engineer colluding with the office bearers of the trade union to nominate representatives of the workmen. in fact, the works committee in the scheme of things has, what he called, an insignificant role to play. there was, therefore, no question of any kind of collusion. shri mittal also sought to draw assistance from the decision union of india v. m.t.s.s.d. workers union (1988-i-llj-543) to support his submission that there could be nomination of the representatives of the workmen. more will be said about this decision because learned counsel for the petitioners shri k.l. mangal also relied on the said decision to contend that there could be no nomination of the representatives of the workmen.8. the relevant rules 38 to 43 of industrial disputes (central) rules, 1957, have already been reproduced and also briefly explained. it will be seen that those rules do not contemplate nomination of the representatives of the workmen in any situation and under any circumstances whatsoever. nomination of the representatives of the employer is no doubt contemplated by rule 40. in fact, that is the only mode in which representatives of the employer may be brought on the works committee. equally clear is the fact that the representatives of the workmen are to be always elected. the 2 manner of this election may vary but there has to be an election. rule 42 contemplates that the representatives of the workmen are to be elected in two groups. but if in an establishment the majority of the workers are in one union, then no division in two groups is necessary. in other words, in that situation the representatives of the workmen will be elected in a single group without any kind of division. it is not provided that if the union has majority of the workers as its members, then nomination of the representatives of the workmen may be done by the employer in consultation with the trade union. it is not known how the employer got this wrong impression. we pointedly asked shri mittal, learned counsel for the respondent, whether it was not clear to him that alleged impression which the employer got was mistaken and whether he could justify on the basis of the rules, nomination of the representatives of the workmen. shri mittal discreetly avoided answering this question arid would come back on his refrain that the employer got the impression bona fide that there could be nomination of the representatives of the workmen and that there was no collusion between the employer and the office bearers of the registered union. we are not concerned whether the employer got the impression correctly or not or whether he acted in collusion or not, because even if he acted without collusion, the illegality of the act would not get washed away. we also do not want to comment on the importance of the role of the works committee. it is clear to us and we state at the cost of repetition that there can never be nomination of representatives of workmen on the works committee. such nomination of the representatives of the workmen on a works committee by the impugned order, annexure p-l, so also inclusion of 8 representatives, inclusive of chairman, on behalf of the employer as against only 7 representatives of the workmen, as already explained, was illegal.9. the decision in union of india v. m.t.s.s.d. workers union in (supra) relied on by both the parties needs to be noticed. it was observed in paragraph 12 of this decision as follows:- (p. 547):'it is therefore clear that the scheme of these rules for constitution of works committee clearly provide: (a) where there is a registered trade union having more than 50 percent membership of the workers in that 5 establishment the total number of members of the works committee will be elected without distribution of any constituencies; (b) if in an industry no trade union registered under trade unions act represents more than 50 per cent of the members, then only the election will be held in two constituencies, one from the members of the registered trade union or unions and the other from non-members of the trade unions and it is only in this contingency it is further provided that if the employer thinks proper may further subdivide the constituency into department, section or shed.'the proposition in clause (a) given in the above decision will apply to the present case, because here also there is a registered trade union having more than 50 per cent membership 5 of the workers. in that situation too, it is stated clearly in the decision that the members of the representatives of the workers will be elected although without distribution of any constituencies. the reliance of shri mittal, learned counsel for the respondents, on this decision was, therefore, erroneous.10. for the foregoing reasons, it is held that the constitution of the works committee by the impugned order (annexure p-1) was illegal. the said order constituting the works committee is quashed. it is further directed that garrison engineer m.e.s., morar shall proceed afresh to constitute the works committee after advertance to observations given in the preceding paragraphs. he shall forthwith proceed to take steps for election of the representatives of the workmen of works committee and get the entire process completed within six weeks positively from the date of this order; where after the works committee shall forthwith be validly reconstituted in accordance with law. no order as to costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

S.K. Chawla, J.

1. The question raised in this writ petition is about the validity of the constitution of a Works Committee which has been constituted for an industrial establishment.

2. There is an industrial establishment of Garrison Engineer, M.E.S., Morar, Gwalior belonging to Central Government employing more than hundred workmen. A Works Committee functions in that establishment. The term of existing Works Committee expired on July 8, 1992. A new, Works Committee for the two year term of 1992-94 was constituted by the Garrison Engineer by an order dated July 29, 1992 (Annexure P-1). By that order, seven representatives of the workmen and seven representatives of the employer were nominated to the Works Committee by the Garrison Engineer, who included himself as Chairman of the Works Committee to preside over the meetings of the Committee. It was also provided in that order that in his absence on leave etc., an officer officiating in his place would preside over the meeting. In effect, there were 7 representatives of the employees and 8 representatives of the employer, inclusive of the Chairman. It is this constitution of the Works Committee which is challenged in this writ petition.

3. The case of the petitioners, who are four of the workmen of the said establishment, is that representatives of the workmen could not have been nominated to the Works Committee by the Garrison Engineer. The said nomination was done by Garrison Engineer in collusion with the office bearers of the Trade union in that establishment. The proper course was that action should have been taken to get representatives of the workmen elected. Secondly, it was also urged that the respective representatives of the workmen and employer should have been equal; but what had happened was that representatives of the employer were one more in number than the representatives of the workmen, i.e. 8 to 7. The constitution of the Works Committee for that reason also was illegal. Prayer was made for quashing of the order dated July 29, 1992 (Annexure P-l) by which the said Works Committee was constituted for the term 1992-94 and direction was also sought for holding of the elections for representatives of the workmen. An application for ad interim writ was also made to restrain the Garrison Engineer from holding any meeting of the newly constituted Works Committee.

4. A reply was filed on behalf of the respondents to the application of grant of ad interim writ. It was urged in the reply that the newly constituted Works Committee had been legally and validly constituted. With the consent of the parties, the matter was finally heard.

5. The constitution of Works Committee for an industrial establishment has been provided for in Section 3 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which reads as under:-

'3. Works Committee. (1) In the case of any industrial establishment in which one hundred or more workmen are employed or have been employed on any day in the preceding twelve months, the appropriate Government may by general or special order require the employer to constitute in the prescribed manner a Works Committee consisting of representatives of employer and workmen engaged in the establishment so however that the number of representatives of workmen on the Committee shall not be less than the number of representatives of the employer. The representatives of the workmen shall be chosen in the prescribed manner from among the workmen engaged in the establishment and in consultation with their trade union, if any, registered under the Indian Trade Union Act, 1926 (XVI of 1926).

(2) It shall be the duty of the Works Committee to promote measures for securing and preserving amity and good relations between the employer and workmen and, to that end, to comment upon matters of their common interest or concern and endeavour to compose any material difference of opinion in respect of such matters.'

It will be seen that the Works Committee has to be constituted in the prescribed manner. It is because of this that Rules have been framed laying down the manner in which the Works Committee will be constituted. These Rules are Rules 38 to 57 contained in Part VII of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957. Rules which are of immediate relevance are Rules 38 to 43 which are reproduced below:-

'38. Constitution. -- Any employer to whom an order made under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 relates shall forthwith proceed to constitute a Works Committee in the manner prescribed in this part.

39. Number of members. The number of members constituting the Committee shall be fixed so as to afford representation to the 5 various categories, groups and class of workmen engaged in, and to the sections, shops or departments of the establishment:

Provided that the total number of members shall not exceed twenty;

Provided further that the number of representatives of the workmen shall not be less than the number of representatives of the employer.

40. Representatives of employer. Subject to the provisions of these rules, the representatives of the employers shall be nominated 2 by the employer and shall as far as possible be officials in direct touch with or associated with the working of the establishment.

41. Consultation with trade unions (1) Where any workmen of an establishment are members of a registered trade union the employer shall ask the union to inform him in writing--

(a) how many of the workmen are members of the union; and

(b) how their membership is distributedamong the sections, shops or departments ofthe establishment.

(2) Where an employer has reason to believethat the information furnished to him underSub-rule (1) by any trade union is false, hemay, after informing the union, refer the matter to the Assistant Labour Commissioner(Central) concerned for his decision, and theAssistant Labour Commissioner (Central),after hearing the parties, shall decide the matter and his decision shall be final.

42. Group of Workmen's representatives. On receipt of the information called for under Rule 41, the employer shall provide for the election of workmen's representative on the Committee in two groups--

(1) those to be elected by the workmen of the establishment, who are members of the registered trade union or unions, and

(2) those to be elected by the workmen of the establishment, who are not members of the registered trade union or unions,

bearing the same proportion to each other as the union members in the establishment bear to the non-members:

Provided that where more than half the workmen are members of the union or any one of the unions, no such division shall be made:

Provided further that where a registered trade union neglects or fails to furnish the information called for under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 41 within one month of the date of the notice requiring it to furnish such information such union shall for the purpose of this rule be treated as if it did not exist:

Provided further that where any reference has been made by the employer under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 41, the election shall be held on receipt of the decision of Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central).

43. Electoral constituencies.-- Where under Rule 42 the workmen's representatives are to be elected in two groups, the workmen entitled to vote shall be divided into two electoral constituencies, the one consisting of those who are members of a registered trade union and the other of those who are not:

Provided that the employer may, if he thinks fit, sub-divide the electoral constituency or constituencies, as the case may be, and direct that workmen shall vote in either by groups, sections, shops or departments.'

6. It will be seen on a reading of above Rules that Rule 39 contemplates that total members constituting a Works Committee shall not exceed 20 and further that the number of representatives of the workmen shall not be less than the number of the representatives of the employer. It was wrongly interpreted on behalf of the petitioners that this Rule requires that the representatives of the workmen and of the employer shall be equal. The true legal position appears to be that their respective number may or may not be equal, but if it is unequal, the rule steps in and says that the number of representatives of the workmen shall not be less than the number of representatives of the employer. In other ords, the number of the representatives of workmen may either be equal or more than the I representatives of the employer. In no case the number of representatives of workmen shall be less than the number of representatives of the employer. Rule 40 contemplates that the representatives of the employer shall be nominated by the employer and shall as far as possible be officials in direct touch with or associated with the working of the establishment. Rule 41 envisages that employer shall ask the registered Trade Union of the workmen in the concerned establishment to inform the employer in writing how many of the workmen are members of that Union and how their membership is distributed among the sections, shops or departments of the establishment. In other words, the employer asks the registered Trade Union to supply him nominal roll of members of the trade Union. Rule 42 then provides that after the receipt of the said information from the registered Trade Union, the employer shall provide for election of the representatives of the workmen on the Works Committee in two groups -- (1) those to be elected by the workmen who are members of the registered Trade Union or Unions, and (2) those to be elected by workmen who are not members of registered Union or Unions. It is further provided that the number of two groups should bear the same proportion to each other as the union members in the establishment bear to the non-members. The first proviso to this Rule con-templates that where more than half the workmen are members of the Union or any one of the Unions, the above kind of division in two groups shall not be made. This shows that where in an industrial establishment the majority of the workers are in one Union, the distribution of the elected representatives as provided in Rule 42 in two groups will not be necessary. The two more provisos to Rule 42 are not of immediate relevance in this case. Rule 43 contemplates that where representatives of the workmen are to be elected in two groups as contemplated in Rule 42, the workmen entitled to vote shall be divided into two electoral constituencies, one consisting of members of registered Trade Union and the other of those who are not. The proviso to Rule 43 further provides that the employer may in the said situation sub-divide the electoral constituency or constituencies, as the case may be, and direct that workmen shall vote in either by groups, sections, shops or departments.

7. It was not disputed before us that M.E.S. Employees Union, Jabalpur Area Gwalior Branch, is a registered Trade Union of the establishment in question and that it has more than half the workmen of the establishment who are its members. The nominal roll of its members was sent by this Union to the employer vide letter (Annexure R/2). That nominal roll gave ames of 530 workmen out of 598 workmen employed in the establishment. In other words, this Union has 530 out of 598 employees as its members. It has, what may be called, road-roller majority. On this basis it was urged by Shri N.P. Mittal, learned counsel for the respondents, that the employer was led to believe on a reading of the above Rules that nomination of the representatives of the workmen could be done in consultation with the Trade Union which enjoyed the majority membership. It was for this reason that the employer sent a letter to the registered Trade Union (Annexure R-3) asking the Union to intimate whether the Union desired to hold elections or nominate the members of the Works Committee. Thereafter the registered Trade Union sent a list of 7 members to be nominated; vide letter Annexure R/4. It was in these circumstances, that the Garrison Engineer by the impugned order dated July 29, 1992, (Annexure P-1) had come to nominate 7 representatives of the workmen as recommended by the registered Trade Union. There was no question of the Garrison Engineer colluding with the office bearers of the Trade Union to nominate representatives of the workmen. In fact, the Works Committee in the Scheme of things has, what he called, an insignificant role to play. There was, therefore, no question of any kind of collusion. Shri Mittal also sought to draw assistance from the decision Union of India v. M.T.S.S.D. Workers Union (1988-I-LLJ-543) to support his submission that there could be nomination of the representatives of the workmen. More will be said about this decision because learned counsel for the petitioners Shri K.L. Mangal also relied on the said decision to contend that there could be no nomination of the representatives of the workmen.

8. The relevant Rules 38 to 43 of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, have already been reproduced and also briefly explained. It will be seen that those Rules do not contemplate nomination of the representatives of the workmen in any situation and under any circumstances whatsoever. Nomination of the representatives of the employer is no doubt contemplated by Rule 40. In fact, that is the only mode in which representatives of the employer may be brought on the Works Committee. Equally clear is the fact that the representatives of the workmen are to be always elected. The 2 manner of this election may vary but there has to be an election. Rule 42 contemplates that the representatives of the workmen are to be elected in two groups. But if in an establishment the majority of the workers are in one Union, then no division in two groups is necessary. In other words, in that situation the representatives of the workmen will be elected in a single group without any kind of division. It is not provided that if the Union has majority of the workers as its members, then nomination of the representatives of the workmen may be done by the employer in consultation with the Trade Union. It is not known how the employer got this wrong impression. We pointedly asked Shri Mittal, learned counsel for the respondent, whether it was not clear to him that alleged impression which the employer got was mistaken and whether he could justify on the basis of the Rules, nomination of the representatives of the workmen. Shri Mittal discreetly avoided answering this question arid would come back on his refrain that the employer got the impression bona fide that there could be nomination of the representatives of the workmen and that there was no collusion between the employer and the office bearers of the registered Union. We are not concerned whether the employer got the impression correctly or not or whether he acted in collusion or not, because even if he acted without collusion, the illegality of the act would not get washed away. We also do not want to comment on the importance of the role of the Works Committee. It is clear to us and we state at the cost of repetition that there can never be nomination of representatives of workmen on the Works Committee. Such nomination of the representatives of the workmen on a Works Committee by the impugned order, Annexure P-l, so also inclusion of 8 representatives, inclusive of Chairman, on behalf of the employer as against only 7 representatives of the workmen, as already explained, was illegal.

9. The decision in Union of India v. M.T.S.S.D. Workers Union in (supra) relied on by both the parties needs to be noticed. It was observed in paragraph 12 of this decision as follows:- (p. 547):

'It is therefore clear that the scheme of these Rules for constitution of Works Committee clearly provide: (a) where there is a registered trade union having more than 50 percent membership of the workers in that 5 establishment the total number of members of the Works Committee will be elected without distribution of any constituencies; (b) if in an industry no trade union registered under Trade Unions Act represents more than 50 per cent of the members, then only the election will be held in two constituencies, one from the members of the registered trade union or unions and the other from non-members of the trade unions and it is only in this contingency it is further provided that if the employer thinks proper may further subdivide the constituency into department, section or shed.'

The proposition in Clause (a) given in the above decision will apply to the present case, because here also there is a registered Trade Union having more than 50 per cent membership 5 of the workers. In that situation too, it is stated clearly in the decision that the members of the representatives of the workers will be elected although without distribution of any constituencies. The reliance of Shri Mittal, learned counsel for the respondents, on this decision was, therefore, erroneous.

10. For the foregoing reasons, it is held that the constitution of the Works Committee by the impugned order (Annexure P-1) was illegal. The said order constituting the Works Committee is quashed. It is further directed that Garrison Engineer M.E.S., Morar shall proceed afresh to constitute the Works Committee after advertance to observations given in the preceding paragraphs. He shall forthwith proceed to take steps for election of the representatives of the workmen of Works Committee and get the entire process completed within six weeks positively from the date of this order; where after the Works Committee shall forthwith be validly reconstituted in accordance with law. No order as to costs.