Bombay High Court: The petition was filed praying that this Court be pleased to hold and declare that the Rule 15 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964 (‘the 1964 Rules’) was not applicable to the associations or trade unions whose membership was restricted to the employees working in the Department of Atomic Energy or in any Ministry or Department of the Government of India and there was no requirement for seeking prior permission of the employer to become office bearers of such association/trade union/federation. It was further prayed that this Court should hold and declare that the insistence of the Department of Atomic Energy of a restricted tenure of 2 terms or 5 years maximum to be office bearers of such service associations/unions/federations was restrictive, arbitrary and in violation of the statutory Central Civil Services (Recognition of Service Association) Rules, 1993 and liable to be struck down.
The Division Bench of Ravindra V. Ghuge* and Ashwin D. Bhobe, JJ., opined 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 (‘the 1926 Act’). The Court dismissed the petition and stated that the number of posts available, the tenure of the post, the eligibility criteria for contesting such elections, etc., were an integral part of the Constitution of the Trade Union.
Background
Petitioner 1, National Federation of Atomic Energy Employees, was a registered federation under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and a recognized association representing the non-gazetted employees in the department of Atomic Energy and its constituent Units. Petitioner 2, Atomic Energy Workers, and Staff Union represented the non-gazetted employees working in Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai and was a Registered Trade Union.
The petitioners stated that the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training issued an office memorandum dated 5-8-2019, vide which the Under Secretary to the Government of India imposed certain restrictions under Rule 15(1)(c) of the 1964 Rules. It was ordered that no government servant should, except with the Government’s previous sanction, hold an elective office or canvas for a candidate/s for an elective office in any body, whether incorporated or not.
The petitioners thus submitted that the Government imposed restrictions on the servants who were members of the petitioners, in contesting their union elections. It was stated that this action undermined the Rule of democracy and the right of union members to contest elections to various posts within the union. Further, it was submitted that the impugned memorandum imposed a cap on the number of elections to be contested by a candidate, who might choose to get elected or had a family member/close relative elected over different Union bodies. The petitioners were also aggrieved by the Office Memorandum dated 27-2-2020 which was a modification of the earlier Office Memorandum, concerning the cap imposed on a right to be elected.
Thereafter, the department introduced an Office Memorandum dated 29-8-2022 and as per its Clause 2, the Authorities made 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 under Rule 15(1) (c) of the 1964 Rules.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
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 stated that the said issues were governed only by the Constitution of the Trade Union which was necessary under the 1926 Act and the number of posts available, the tenure of the post, the eligibility criteria for contesting such elections, etc., were an integral part of the Constitution of the Trade Union.
The Court opined 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 also opined 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. Thus, the employer could always initiate disciplinary action against an errant Office Bearer. However, it was not only arbitrary but was 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 get elected. The Court thus allowed the writ petition.
[National Federation of Atomic Energy Employees v. Union of India, Writ Petition No. 12666 of 2024, decided on 15-4-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Ramesh Ramamurthy a/w Saikumar Ramamurthy a/w Seema Sorte a/w Priyanka Katkam for the Petitioner.
For the Respondens: Amrendra Mishra a/w Ashutosh Mishra for the Respondents 1 2, 4, and 5.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
