The Division Bench of Bombay HC in the case of National Federation of Atomic Energy Employees v. Union of India, Writ Petition No. 12666 of 2024, decided on 15-4-2025 observed that no employer could create such service rules which would create an embargo on the terms and conditions or the clauses of the Constitution of a Trade Union. The Court stated that the issues like contesting elections or continuing as Office Bearers of the Trade Union, by elections or unopposed, or for canvassing someone’s candidature, were governed only by the Constitution of the Trade Union which was necessary under the Trade Unions Act, 1926.
In this case Federation of Unions challenged the order of the central Govt. through which department introduced an Office Memorandum dated 29-8-2022 making it mandatory for a government employee, who intended to be elected as an office bearer of his service association (a Registered Trade Union), to seek prior permission from the Govt. to contest election under Rule 15(1) (c) of the 1964 Rules.
Also read – Honasa Consumer elevates Karan Bajwa as CHRO
The Court opined that Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution enabled a group of people to come together and form an association and under the 1926 Act, employees working in public or private sector undertakings could come together and form a trade union with a minimum of seven members. The Court stated that the registration granted to a trade union empowered it to conduct itself in accordance with the provisions of the 1926 Act, and its constitution. The members of the Union had a right to elect a person of their choice, in as much as every member, subject to the qualifying clause regarding the eligibility, could contest elections and an employer per se had no role to play regarding the internal affairs of the Trade Union. The Court opined that no employer could be permitted to impose restrictions on the freedom of the members of a Trade Union in either contesting elections or continuing as Office Bearers of the Trade Union, by elections or unopposed, or for canvassing someone’s candidature.
The Court also stated that there was no embargo either under the 1926 Act nor had the respondent pointed out that the Constitution of these unions had an inbuilt embargo or created a restriction on the number of terms to be enjoyed by an elected Office Bearer. The Court stated that the elected Office Bearer must ensure that he performed his duties diligently and did not indulge in union activities by sacrificing his official duties.
Court stated that it was not only arbitrary but also undemocratic for an employer to superimpose conditions for deciding who should contest an election and for what tenure he should hold the office, and for how many terms he should be elected. The Court thus allowed the writ petition.
Stay connected with us on social media platforms for instant updates click here to join our LinkedIn, Twitter & Facebook
