AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V. Jagannathan, J.—These petitions are disposed of finally after hearing the learned Counsel for the Petitioners Sri. Subramanya Bhat for M/s. Subbarao and Company and Sri.V.S.naik, learned Counsel for Caveator/Respondent No 4 and Sri. Jagadish Mundargi, learned Government Advocate, who was directed to take notice for Respondent No. 3.
The Petitioners grievance is that, the third Respondent is holding Referendum and to file the establishment according to each Union in the establishment is to take place on 18.12.2010 and as per the calendar of events, voting will also to be held on the same day. Petitioners 2 to 13 have not been permitted to vote in the Referendum. Therefore, referring to the-proceedings dated 09.12.2010 (Annexure - ''L'') submission made by the Petitioners counsel is that, the other Unions have no objection for adding the persons who are working in Common Service Department (CSD) And therefore, in the face of no objection being taken by all the Unions, Petitioners 2 to 13 therefore could not have been deprived of voting on the aforesaid date in respect of the Referendum.
On the other hand, Sri. V.S. Naik, learned Counsel for the 4th Respondent submitted that pursuant to the proceedings on 09.13.2010, there were also subsequent proceedings, wherein it was agreed that in respect of any dispute concerning the Referendum proceedings, a Committee has been constituted and that Committee will come into the grievance that may be raised by any persons and decision of the Committee would be final and the said decision cannot be question in any Court of law. Further submission made is that, the first Petitioner, which is HMT Karmikara Sangha is also one of the members of the said Grievance Committee, which also assures the 3rd Respondent Commissioner as well as the other Unions. Under these circumstances, it is not open to the first Petitioner, which itself is a member of the Committee to come before this Court and seek for direction to permit the other Petitioners to also to vote in the Referendum
It is also submitted by Sri. V.S. Naik that if the Petitioners 2 to 13 are aggrieved, they are at liberty to approach the Committee before the Referendum takes place and the Committee would consider their grievance in accordance with law.
Learned Government Advocate also adopted the very same submissions made by Sri. V.S. Naik.
Having thus heard both sides and taking note of the fact that in proceedings dated 04.12.2010, copy of which is placed for my perusal by Sri. V.S. Naik, learned for the 5th Respondent, it is clear that in respect of any dispute concerning the Referendum proceedings, a Committee has been constituted and such Committee will have under the Presidentship of the Assistant Labour Commissioner and all the other Unions are also members of the Committee as well as the Manager. The first Petitioner herein is also shown as the 4th member. Apart from this, the proceedings also make it clear that in respect of the decisions taken, there will be no question of going to the Court in respect of any of the question that arose concerning the Referendum.
In the Height of the aforesaid materials placed in the proceedings dated 04.12.20.10, the first Petitioner Union also being a member of the Committee constituted to consider the grievance in respect of the Referendum proceedings, the Petitioners 2 to 13 if they are aggrieved because of not being permitted to vote in the Referendum, they can very well air their grievance through the Petitioner, which is also a member of the Grievance Committee. The Petitioners are at liberty to make a representation before the Committee before the actual Referendum takes place on 18.12.2010 and if such representation is given, the Committee will have to consider the same in accordance with law.
Writ Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.