National Union Of Seafarers Of India v. The Lieutenant Governor
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ...
WPA/180/2021 IA NO: CAN/1/2021 National Union of Seafarers of India & Another ... Petitioners Vs.
The Lieutenant Governor and Others ... Respondents Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar, Advocate ... for the petitioners Mr. MP Kamaraj, Advocate ... for the respondents December 8, 2021 [GNC] Item No.6 The writ petitioners seek a direction upon the respondent authorities to declare the petitioner-Union as the majority Union of seafarers deployed in mainland-island sector and foreshore sector under the Andaman and Nicobar Administration on the basis of the individual written consent of the seafarers being the members of the writ petitioner-Union.
Learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioners submits that the writ petitioner-Union enjoys support of 69 permanent company roster crew members out of 95 from mainland-island sector and 70 permanent company roster crew members out of 108 from foreshore sector. Consequently, the petitioner-Union is the majority Union to represent such seafarers.
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that at earlier point of time the issue as to who is the majority Union was decided by the respondent No.5. It is subsequent to the year 2018-19 that the respondent No.5 stopped deciding such issue. He submits that on previous occasion pursuant to
the order passed by the High Court the issue was decided by the Labour Commissioner. According to him, such order was passed by consent of the parties and cannot govern the future period. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that subscription was deducted in accordance with law from the individual seafarers. Thereafter, the respondent No.5 failed to take a decision as to who is the majority Union. Learned advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.1,3,4 and 5 refers to the affidavit in opposition. He refers to the Recognition of the Union under the Code of Discipline and makes elaborate submission thereof. He submits that the Labour Commissioner is required to decide the issue. In addition thereto he relies upon the order of the High Court passed in WP No.009 of 2016 on April 5, 2016 and submits that the Labour Commissioner had decided the issue on an earlier occasion. He submits that such issue now is to be decided by the Labour Commissioner also.
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners in response draws the attention of the Court to a letter written by the Labour Commissioner dated December 4, 2020 where the Labour Commissioner stated that he is not the authority to decide such issue.
Recognition of Union under the Code of Discipline apparently relates to the decision as to which Union will represent the Industry. In the present case, the petitioners are not seeking recognition of Union in relation to shipping Industry. The petitioners are seeking recognition as the majority Union in
respect of the specified area under the Directorate of Shipping Services.
Therefore, in my view, Recognition of Union under the Code of Discipline referred to on behalf of the respondent Nos.1,3,4 and 5 is not attracted in the facts of the present case. The previous order of the High Court passed in WP No.009 of 2016 dated April 5, 2016 was passed by consent of the parties as is recorded in the opening paragraph of such order. Therefore, such an order cannot be construed to mean that in future and for all times to come all issues with regard to declaration of majority Union should be decided by the Labour Commissioner. Moreover, there is the letter dated December 4, 2020 of the Labour Commissioner claiming that he did not possess the jurisdiction to decide such an issue.
The writ petitioners being confined to a sector of the Industry and not claiming to represent the shipping Industry in its entirety, it would be appropriate to direct the respondent No.5 to decide the issue of majority Union as claimed by the writ petitioners within a period of fortnight from the date of communication of this order. The respondent No.5 will afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners before taking such decision. The respondent No.5 is at liberty to hear such other parties and consult such documents that he deems necessary. He will pass a reasoned order within a fortnight from date of receipt of this order and shall communicate such reasoned order to the parties be heard forthwith thereafter.
WPA/180/2021along with connected application are disposed of accordingly.
(Debangsu Basak, J. )