AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.—The Petitioner is a Registered Association. It seeks quashing of a letter dated 8.1.2004 issued by the respondent and
appropriate directions, to the respondents to accord recognition to it as service association.
The Petitioner Association claims to represent members of the operational staff working in the Directorate of Coordination, (Police Wireless). It
was registered under the Societies Registration Act on 30.9.1993. On 10.6.1994 the Petitioner sought for recognition as an Association under the
CCS (Recognition of Service Association) Rules, 1993 (hereafter called ""Rules""). The Respondent elicited some information about strength of the
association and its Constitution. Thereafter some letters were exchanged between the Petitioner and the Respondent. On 22.2.1999 the
Respondents issued an Office Memorandum intimating that due to alleged failure of other two associations to supply essential facts and details,
their cases as well as that of the Petitioner could not be sent for recognition. The Respondent required the Petitioner to notify whether it fulfilled the
conditions contained in the Notification dated 5.11.1993. The Petitioner supplied the necessary clarification on 26.2.1999.
In the year 2002 the Petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal for a direction to the Respondents to accord recognition to it.
The Tribunal by its order dated 18.7.2003 disposed of the Petitioner''s application directing the respondents to take appropriate decision in
accordance with the rules. These were followed by certain other miscellaneous proceedings before the Tribunal which are not of particular
importance.
On 8.1.2004 the Respondents issued an Office Memorandum declining recognition of the Petitioner - Association. The said Memorandum
stated that the Ministry of Home Affairs, after considering all aspects decided to constitute a Grievance Redressal Mechanism in the Directorate of
Coordination (Police Wireless) in tune with similar arrangements in other Central Police Organizations, to take care of all service related matters
including the welfare aspects of the staff. That Notification has been challenged.
It is averred and argued on behalf of the Petitioner, by Ms. Prashanthi Prasad that the impugned order is unreasonable and arbitrary. Learned
Counsel relied upon the Rules and contended that their object is to ensure that associations comprising a significant strength - not less than 35% of
staff of the concerned organization - should be accorded recognition to facilitate grievance redressal in an orderly manner. It was contended that
the rationale of the Rules was to ensure meaningful dialogue with the employer i.e the Respondents. Counsel submitted that if this premise is kept in
mind, the question of a separate grievance redressal mechanism can never arise. Learned Counsel contended that the object of a grievance
redressal mechanism as opposed to recognition of a duly Registered Association or a Union, is to afford individual access to employees. However,
that procedure would be deficient in so far as grievances which can be aired collectively on account of hesitation and fear, of such individual
employees are concerned. In such cases the role of an association or union becomes important.
Learned Counsel contended that the right to form an association and air one''s grievances through such forums is guaranteed by Article 19(1)(c)
of the Constitution. The impugned circular in denying the Petitioner''s request for recognition by following the 1993 rules not only violates the said
rules but also the valuable fundamental rights.
It was next contended that the Petitioner-Association represents operational staff of the respondent which has hardly any strength in the
Gazetted cadres. However, in the case of two other cadres there is no such impediment; they have more than their share of representation in the
gazetted posts. Therefore, the decision to exclude the Petitioner''s Association and deny recognition has also resulted in discrimination and
arbitrariness.
Learned Counsel for the Respondents relied upon the counter affidavit and submitted that there is no inherent right to claim a direction that the
Petitioner-association should be recognized. It was contended that the matter of recognition of such associations was being considered by the
Ministry of Home Affairs, Central Government. The Office of Directorate of Coordination (Police Wireless) where the Petitioner''s members are
employed is treated at par with Central Police Organisations. They are entrusted with matters connected to security of the country such as police
communication in general as well as flow of information in emergent cases and crises. Keeping in mind the nature of the organization and also the
object of ensuring uniformity and parity, the respondents decided to set up a Grievance Redressal Mechanism instead of proceeding to recognize
associations. It was contended that having regard to the sensitive nature of the work and job profile of the members of the Petitioners and even the
overall policy parameters considered by the Respondents, a conscious decision not to recognize any association but instead to facilitate grievance
redressal, through an independent mechanism was established. Being a policy decision, the Court should not interfere with it as there is no
unreasonableness or arbitrariness.
The above discussion would show that the members of the Petitioner Association are employees in the Directorate of Coordination (Police
Wireless). The Directorate''s task appears to be to coordinate the police wireless network in the country. No recognition is granted to any Service
Association or Union of employees or staff members of Central Police Organizations. This is pursuant to a conscious policy choice. The
Respondents have sought to extend the same policy to the Directorate of Coordination (Police Wireless).
Now it is no doubt true that the right to form an association is a valuable one and is guaranteed by Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution. To
achieve that right appropriate mechanisms have been evolved through suitable legislation such as Societies Registration Act, State Cooperative
Societies Act, the Companies Act, Trade Unions Act etc. If one views the present case from that perspective, there is no impediment for formation
of an association - indeed the Petitioner Association was formed and even registered as a Society. What, however, the Petitioner seeks a direction
that such association should be recognized under the rules framed in 1993.
It was held long back by the Supreme Court in All India Bank Employees'' Association Vs. National Industrial Tribunal and Others, that the
right to form an association does not carry with it a guarantee that the object for which the association is formed, should be achieved. In other
words, the right to associate does not carry with it the concomitant right to insist that the objects of the association should be achieved. If this
distinction - a subtle one but nevertheless real enough - is kept in mind, it would be immediately apparent that what the Petitioner is seeking is that
its object of ensuring negotiation through the process of recognition should also be achieved. As I understand the law, that is not a guaranteed right,
under Article 19(1)(c)
The next question is whether the decision suffers from the vice of arbitrariness or discrimination. As discussed in the earlier part of the
judgment, the Directorate of Coordination facilitates the smooth flow of information and a large part of it is sensitive. Therefore, the Ministry of
Home Affairs in its wisdom formed an opinion that the Directorate functions like other Central Police Organizations. Keeping this sensitive
character of its duties, the respondents have decided not to accord recognition to any association but instead to facilitate dispute or conflict
resolution particularly in relation to service benefit etc., through a grievance redressal mechanism. Such a decision falls within the realm of policy or
executive decision making. It has been often said that in judicial review under Article 226 the Court does not examine the wisdom of the decision
maker or its merits. If the Court does so, it dons the mantle of an Appellate Authority, which is just not permissible. Sans patent and manifest
unreasonableness in the policy or illegality or lack of bona fides, the Court would refrain from interdicting executive judgments. In these
circumstances, I am of the opinion that the impugned order cannot be characterized as arbitrary, unreasonable or discriminatory.
In view of the above findings, the writ petition has to fail. The Writ Petition and CMs No. 10578/06 & 4640/2007 are accordingly dismissed.
No costs.