Dss Dockyard Employees Union And ORS v. Union Of India And ORS.
03.02.2023 sayandeep Sl. No. 01 Ct. No. 05 High Court at Calcutta Civil Appellate Jurisdiction (Circuit Bench at Port Blair) WPA 175 of 2023 DSS Dockyard Employees Union & Ors.
-VersusUnion of India & Ors.
Mr. P.C. Das Mrs. Anjili Nag Ms. Soma Chowdhury ....for the petitioners Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty Mr. Ramendu Agarwal ...for the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 The writ petitioners have challenged their rejection of nominations for seats in a Works Committee Election of the Directorate of Shipping Services, A & N Administration. Of the seven candidates who were rejected, six are before the Court.
The reason given for the impugned rejection is of the petitioners (described as candidates in the impugned decision) being found to be ineligible as the petitioners have filed nominations for multiple seats through a single nomination form.
The petitioners are aggrieved by the rejection and learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the reason for the impugned decision/rejection was not spelt out in the Notification dated 18th January, 2023 of the Directorate of Shipping Services, A & N Administration.
Learned counsel appearing for the Administration places relevant provisions of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Industrial Disputes(Central) Rules, 1957 to urge that the impugned rejection is in accordance with the Statute.
Rules 47, 48 and 49 are a few of the provisions in relation to elections of a Works Committee. Rule 47(1) deals with nomination of candidates for election and prescribes that every nomination shall be made on a nomination paper in Form-G, copies of which shall be supplied by the employer to the workmen who require the nomination papers. Rule 47 (2) provides that every nomination paper shall be signed by the candidate to whom the nomination papers relates and attested by at least two other voters belonging to the group, section and so on. Rule 48(1) provides that the nomination paper shall be scrutinized by the employer in the presence of the candidates and the attesting person. Rule 48(2) makes it clear that a nomination paper shall be held to be invalid if the requirements of Rule 47 have not been complied with. It should further be clarified that the subject matter of the dispute namely the election to the Works Committee is scheduled to be held tomorrow for counting of votes and declaration of results. The election is under Section 3 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The documents in the writ petition suggest that the six of the eight petitioners filed individual
nomination papers signed by the proposer but for multiple seats as candidates for the election to the Works Committee. In fact, two of the nomination papers are for three seats while a single candidate has been proposed by the proposer. Apart from the nominations being made for multiple seats, the act of proposing candidates for multiple seats is not only against fair practice in an election but is also against the clear legislative intendment of Rule 47(1) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957. The Rule presupposes that every nomination must be made and signed by the candidate to whom it relates for a single seat. There is nothing in the Rules including those placed before the Court to suggest otherwise. The contention of counsel appearing for the petitioners that a candidate can file his/her nomination for more than one seat is found to be lacking in merit and is accordingly rejected.
This Court is accordingly of the view that the reason for rejection of the eight candidates/petitioners before the Court six of whose nomination forms are enclosed in the writ petition, cannot be faulted. WPA 175 of 2023 is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.
(Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.)