Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
Shri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State.
This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the Indian National Trade Union Congress which is a Trade Union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926.
The petitioner claims that in 1996 an accommodation was allotted to it but subsequently that was changed to House No. 155 Vidhayak Niwas- 2, New Darul Safa, District- Lucknow, in 2014.
On being asked as to under which provision of law the said allotment was made we could not be informed of any provision of law under which such allotment had been made. Even the writ petition does not disclose as to under which provision of law such allotment was made.
In fact on 19.08.2016 itself petitioner was informed about cancellation of its allotment in view of pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lok Prahari Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.; Writ Petition No. 657 of 2004 dated 01.08.2016 and was asked not only to vacate the premises but pay arrears of rent also. This order was not put to challenge, instead, as informed by learned counsel for petitioner, as the allotment was to be renewed every year/ or re-allotment was to be made, therefore, under Section 6(2) of the Allotment of Houses under Control of the Estate Department Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 2016') the petitioner applied for renewal vide application dated 09.12.2016, though, the application at page 55 does not refer to this provision. It is this application which was rejected on 01.11.2017. The said order was never put to challenge prior to filing of this writ petition. In fact, on 13.11.2020 when the petitioner was asked to vacate the premises, it is only then, that it has approached this Court not only challenging the order dated 13.11.2020 but also the order dated 01.11.2017, albeit, belatedly. No reason has been given much less a plausible one for the delay in approaching the Court challenging the order dated 01.11.2017.
By the recent order dated 13.11.2020, referring to earlier orders dated 19.08.2016, 05.12.2016 and 01.11.2017, the petitioner has been asked to deposit arrears of rent and vacate the premises. By the order dated 01.11.2017 petitioner's application for renewal of allotment/re-allotment had been rejected on the ground it is not a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Much emphasis was laid by learned counsel for petitioner that this reasoning was not tenable in the facts of the case.
Learned counsel for petitioner laid great emphasis on an order dated 31.01.2020 which is nothing but an internal correspondence with the Principal Secretary, Labour Department that the term 'Employees Association' is used in Section 2-L of the Act, 2016 refers to such Employees Association which had been recognized by the State Government and whose head quarters are at Lucknow. The said correspondence further goes on to say that it is being examined as to whether Indian National Trade Union Congress as an employees association, is recognized by the State Government or not. We categorically asked the learned counsel for petitioner as to whether petitioner is an employees association and also as to whether it is recognized by the State Government, as, only such associations are covered for allotment of premises under the Act, 2016, learned counsel responded by contending that the petitioner is a Trade Union under the Trade Unions Act, but could not show any recognition by the State Government, though, he claimed benefit of Section 2(l) of the Act, 2016 on the ground that it was an 'employees association'.
In the writ petition also it has been asserted that it is an employees association recognized by the State Government but without any proof being annexed with it.
We further asked him as to whether this union comprises of employees of the State Government or public undertakings controlled by it, he stated that it comprised of workmen. On the other question regarding its recognition, as already stated, he could not place before the Court any document to show that petitioner was recognized by the State Government.
We pointed out to learned counsel for petitioner Rules known as Uttar Pradesh (Recognition of Service Associations) Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1979') which have been made by the State Government for recognition of employees associations. These Rules are of 1979 and are still in force. Government Servant is defined in Rule 2-(b) of Rules, 1979 to mean- any person appointed by the Government to any civil service or post in connection with the affairs of the State and to whom all or any of the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956 apply. Rule 5 of the said Rules mentions the conditions for recognition of associations under the said Rules. As per Clause-(c) of Rule 5- membership of an Association is required to be restricted to a district category of serving Government Employees (excluding retired) and it is required to represent more than 50% of the total strength of that particular category. Clause-(e) of Rule 5 further goes on to say that it is necessary that no person, who is not serving Government servant is connected with the affairs of the Association in order to be eligible for recognition under the said Rules. Similarly, Rule 6 speaks of conditions for recognition of a Federation and Clause-(c) thereof also requires the Federation to be comprised of recognized associations of the same category of Government employees and it should not be multi-functional or multi-professional. Rule 7 deals with condition of recognition of Confederation. Clause-(b) thereof also mentions that the Confederation should be formed primarily with the object of promoting harmonious relations amongst the wider group of Government employees and promoting their common service and interest.
On a perusal of aforesaid Rules it is evident that the association which is to be recognized thereunder has to be of serving Government employees. The aforesaid Rules 5, 6 and 7 have to be read in consonance with Rule 2(b) of Rules, 1979 and not otherwise.
Now, when we come back to Act, 2016 under which renewal was sought by petitioner i.e. under Section 6(2) thereof, firstly, we find that the said Act was enacted by the State Legislature to regulate the allotment of houses under the Control of Estate Department of Government to the employees and Officers of the State Government, employees associations, political parties etc. Section 2(a) defines 'Allotment' to mean to authorise a person to occupy a house under the provisions of this Act. Section 2 (h) defines "Trust", which the petitioner is not. Section 2(i) defines "Society", which the petitioner is not. A Trust which is registered under the Trust Act. The petitioner is also not a political party, nor a journalist.
The question is, is it an 'employees association' as defined in Section 2(l) of the Act, 2016 which means an Employees Association which is recognized by the State Government and the head quarter of which is at Lucknow. Now, Shri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for petitioner contends that the employees association does not necessarily have to be an association of employees of the State Government. The point is, if the employees association referred in Section 2(l), which is to be recognized by the State Government, is not one comprising of employees of State Government then why recognition by the State Government is required. We may in this regard refer to Rule 3 of the Allotment of Houses under Control of the Estate Department Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to 'the Rules, 2016') made under the Act, 2016 which says that a person eligible for allotment under Section 4 of the Act, 2016 shall make an application to the Estate Officer. Further, as per Rule 5(viii) of the Rules, 2016 employees associations which are recognized by the State Government with its headquarters at Lucknow, and are working for the welfare of Uttar Pradesh employees may be allotted a house for a period of two years. This Rule is not under challenge. Moreover, we have already referred to Rules, 1979 under which the State Government does recognize the employees associations of serving government employees. The property in question, allotment or re-allotment of which is sought, is that of the Estate Department of the Government. A Trade Union is registered under a Central enactment i.e. the Act, 1926 by the Registrar of Trade Union who is a central government employee.
Irrespective of this, there is nothing on record to show that petitioner is recognized by the State Government as an employee association so as to be covered under Section 2(l) read with Section 4 and 6(2) of the Act, 2016.
Now, it is said that the application for allotment was made under Section 6(2) which applies to applicants other than the applicants mentioned in Sub-Section 1 of Section 6 of the Act, 2016. Herein also petitioner does not fall in any category. Type- 1 houses are reserved for Group- 'D' employees working under the State Government. Type- 2 is reserved for Group- 'C' non gazetted employees working under the State Government. Type- 3 is reserved for Group -'C' gazetted employees working under the State Government. The petitioner does not fall in these categories. Type- 4 is reserved for Group- 'B' officers working under the State Government/ Officers of judicial serves, journalist, society, recognized association. Now, Shri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for petitioner says that petitioner is a recognized association, however, he is not able to show any order of the State Government by which it may have been recognized nor that it falls within the definition of Section 2(l). Type- 5, 6 and 7 houses referred in the Act, 2016 are reserved for other categories mentioned in Section 4 and it is not the case of petitioner that it falls in any of the categories mentioned therein.
Now, one can understand if the petitioner has a grievance as to why, if a Trust, Society and a Journalist can be brought within the ambit of the Act, 2016, the petitioner, which is a Trade Union, should not be so brought under the purview of the Act but this would require a challenge either to the vires of the Act, 2016 or seeking of such other appropriate relief as may be permissible in law, but no renewal or allotment could have been sought by petitioner under the Act, 2016 in the first place, therefore, even if the reason given in the impugned order dated 01.11.2017, challenge to which is in any case highly belated, is that the petitioner is not a society, that itself does not persuade this Court to interfere in the matter by quashing the said order unless the petitioner was able to satisfy the Court that it was covered by the Act, 2016, about which we are not satisfied at all.
As regards contention of learned counsel for petitioner that the State Government is still seized with the matter as to whether petitioner qualifies as an employees association recognized by the State Government or not in view of a letter dated 31.01.2020, firstly, it is an internal correspondence. Secondly, the order dated 13.11.2020 has been passed 10 months thereafter, therefore, obviously the matter is no longer under consideration by the State Government. Thirdly, whether the petitioner is covered by the Act, 2016 or not, is a legal issue to be decided and the Courts are best suited to decide the said issue with the assistance of the counsel, which has been ably provided by Shri Ratnesh Chandra, yet, inspite of it we have not been persuaded to come to the conclusion that petitioner is covered by the Act, 2016 for the reasons already mentioned hereinabove.
The contention of Shri Chandra that neither the Act nor the Rules made thereunder contain modalities for recognition, therefore, this can not be a ground for ousting the petitioner from its purview is also not acceptable in view of Rules 1979 referred above as also Rule 5(viii) of the Rules, 2016 made under the Act, 2016 and Section 2(l) of the Act, 2016. Even if this argument is accepted for the sake of discussion, it does not help the petitioner, as he claims to fall in the category of employees association which has to be recognized by the State Government under Section 2(l) and does not claim to fall in any other category to which the Act 2016 applies. No recognition of the petitioner by the State Government has been produced by it before us.
A Trade Union registered under the Act, 1926 is not eligible for allotment under the Act, 2016 unless it satisfies the conditions of Section 2(l), Section 4 of the Act, 2016 read with Rule 5(viii) of the Rules, 2016. As already stated petitioner could have a grievance of discrimination if otherwise tenable in law but it is not possible to come to the conclusion that it has a right of allotment, re-allotment or renewal of allotment under the Act, 2016 as it stands without a challenge to its vires.
We appreciate the efforts made by Shri Ratnesh Chandra but in view of the admitted factual position before us and the express provision of law we find ourselves unable to accede his arguments nor accept the same. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders.
We accordingly dismiss the writ petition.
.
(Saurabh Lavania,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Order Date :- 13.1.2021 R.K.P.