Heard the learned advocates.
The petitioner before this Court is a Labour Union which claims to be operating in the Kandla Port Trust (hereinafter referred to as "the Trust"). The petitioner claims that it is a Craft Union i.e. it has membership of Class-IV employees of the Trust. The grievance in the present case is centered around Check-off System introduced by the Union Government in the year 1998. The Check-off System appears to have been introduced with a view to ruling out possible disputes between the Labour Unions regarding its membership. The strength of the membership has the effect of having a representative on the Board of Trustees of the Trust. The Check-off System requires, interali, that:-
An employee shall be allowed to subscribe to only one registered union of his choice; the authorisation shall be made in the prescribed form; the prescribed form received by the union shall be handed over to the designated officer; the authorisation letter once given shall remain valid until it is revoked by giving three month's notice in writing to the designated officer who in turn shall inform about the revocation to the concerned union; the amount of subscription shall be recovered from the salary bill from the month of January; the details as per the proforma shall be sent to the Central Ministry by First February, every year.
It is the case of the petitioner that with a view to implementing above referred Check-off System in letter spirit, it is imperative that any change in the authorisation by the concerned employee shall be submitted before 30th September so as to make it effective with effect from 1st January, the next succeeding year. 30th September shall be the cut off date for accepting revocation of membership/for change in the authorisation. However, in the year 2001 the Trust has accepted the change in authorisation/revocation of membership even after 30th September, 2001 upto 31st October, 2001. The shifting of the cut off date has adversely affected the strength of the petitioner Union and shall have reflection in selection of the representatives on the Board of Trustees. The said change has been made in contravention of the Check-off System introduced by the Union Government with the ulterior motive. Therefore, the petition.
In answer to the notice the Port Trust has appeared through the learned advocate Mr.S.R. Brahmbhatt and has contested the petition. The Trust has filed above Civil Application No.2497/2002. It has challenged the locus standi of the petitioner. Since, according to the Trust, the petitioner Union has not a single membership in the Trust. It therefore, has no locus standi to challenge the action of the Trust. Besides, it is submitted that relevant date for submission of the strength of each of the Unions operating in the Trust is First February. Keeping in view First February as the relevant date the necessary details as on 31st January are required to be furnished. Therefore, the change in authorisation/revocation of membership are accepted even after 30th September i.e. still 31st October. It is not true to say that the change in the authorisation or revocation of membership is being accepted after 30th September for the first time in the year 2001.
I am of the view that the petitioner has no locus standi to prefer this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The categorical statement made by the Trust has not been controverted by the petitioner Union. Even in the memo of the petition no averments have been made as regards the strength of the petitioner Union. It is therefore, held that the petitioner Union has no locus standi to challenge the impugned action of the trust. However, it may be noted that the Check-off System has been introduced by the Government of India with a view to avoiding possible disputes amongst rival Unions. The direction issued, therefore, can at the most be said to be directory. The same cannot be equated with the mandatory directions under a statute. The same is required to be followed so as to meet the purpose for which the scheme is introduced. Any deviation therefrom, so long as it does not defeat the basic purpose of the scheme may be permissible. In the present case, as it emerges from the scheme itself no cut off date has been introduced. However, with a view to facilitating an employee to give three months' notice and still have a reflection in the forthcoming selection of the members of the Board of Trustees a suitable cut off date may be accepted. As stated by the Trust in its application and as accepted by the Government of India also, such cut off date may be 31st October so as to enable an employee to give change of authorisation/ notice of revocation adequately in advance so as to have its reflection by the end of January of the next succeeding year. I see no illegality committed by the Trust in accepting the Change of authorisation or notice of revocation even after 30th September, 2001 till 31st October, 2001. Thus the petition is devoid of merits.
In view of the above discussion, the petition is dismissed. Notice is discharged. Ad-interim relief is vacated. The Civil Application is disposed of.
[Ms.R.M. Doshit, J.] /phalguni/