Central govt staff don't need prior nod to run for and hold office in trade unions: HC
MUMBAI: The Bombay high court last week struck down an office memorandum issued by the atomic energy department (AED), which required their employees to seek prior permission to contest elections and become office-bearers of trade unions and restricted their tenure to four years.
The division bench of justices Ravindra Ghuge and Ashwin Bhobe also clarified that employees of any ministry or department of the cenral government, including the AED, do not require prior permission become office-bearers of any association or trade union whose membership is restricted to employees of the department.
'Under the provisions of the Trade Unions Act, 1926, employees working in public or private sector undertakings can come together and form a trade union....An employer per se has no role to play with regard to the internal affairs of the trade union,' the division bench said while striking down restrictions imposed by the atomic energy department through an office memorandum dated August 29, 2022.
The memorandum restrained central government employees from contesting elections or becoming office-bearers of any body, including trade unions, without prior permission of the government, and restricted their tenure to two terms or five years, whichever is longer.
The National Federation of Atomic Energy Employees had challenged the office memorandum in the high court last year.
The government opposed the petition, expressing serious concerns about productivity of elected office-bearers and claiming they would develop vested interests, lost interest in their jobs and not perform their duties faithfully.
The bench, however, refused to accept the contention.
'In a country which is administered by the rule of democracy and which is recognised to be one of the largest democracies in the world, no employer can be permitted to impose restrictions on the freedom of members of a trade union in either contesting elections or continuing as office-bearers,' the court said.
'These issues are governed only by the Constitution of the trade union which is necessary under the Trade Unions Act, 1926,' said the bench. 'No employer can create such service rules which would create an embargo on the terms and conditions or the clauses of the Constitution of a trade union.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Print
34 minutes ago
- The Print
Preventive detention extraordinary power of state that must be used sparingly: SC
'Therefore, the order of detention dated June 20, 2024, and the impugned judgment dated September 4, 2024, passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam are hereby set aside. In the attending facts and circumstances of this case, the appeal is allowed,' the bench said in its order passed on Friday. A bench of justices Sanjay Karol and Manmohan said the circumstances pointed out in the order by the detaining authority may be ground enough for the state to approach the competent courts for cancellation of bail in cases against him, but it cannot be said that the same warranted his preventive detention. New Delhi, Jun 7 (PTI) Preventive detention is an extraordinary power in the hands of the state that must be used sparingly, said the Supreme Court as it set aside an order to detain a man indulging in money lending in Kerala. Noting that the power of preventive detention finds recognition in the Constitution under Article 22(3)(b), the bench said, 'The provision for preventive detention is an extraordinary power in the hands of the state that must be used sparingly. It curtails the liberty of an individual in anticipation of the commission of further offence(s), and therefore, must not be used in the ordinary course of nature.' The bench said the contention of the detaining authority that the detainee, Rajesh, who used to run a private financing company called 'Rithika Finance', was violating the conditions of bail imposed upon him in the cases that have been considered for passing the order of detention. It said that pertinently, no application has been filed by the respondent in any of the four cases, alleging violation of such conditions, if any, and moreover, have not even been spelt out during the hearing of the case filed by his wife against the Kerala High Court order, which affirmed the preventive detention order of the Palakkad district magistrate. 'Keeping in view the above expositions of law, we have no doubt that the order of detention cannot be sustained. The circumstances pointed out in the order by the detaining authority may be ground enough for the state to approach the competent courts for cancellation of bail, but it cannot be said that the same warranted his preventive detention. 'We clarify that if such an application for cancellation of the detainee's bail is made by the respondent – state, the same must be decided uninfluenced by the observations made hereinabove,' the bench noted. It referred to the provisions of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007, and said that the object of the statute was to provide for effective prevention of certain anti-social activities in the state. The bench said Section 2(j) of the state law defines 'goonda' as a person who indulges in activities that are harmful to the maintenance of public order, either directly or indirectly, and includes persons who are bootleggers, counterfeiters, drug offenders, and loan sharks, among others. The bench also said that under Section 3 of the Act, the district magistrate so authorised or the government may pass an order directing detention of a 'known goonda' to prevent commission of antisocial activities within the state of Kerala. 'Coming to the attending facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that the exercise of power under Section 3 of the Act was not justified in law,' the top court said, as it noted four cases lodged under the Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958, cited by the police for recommending preventive detention to the district magistrate. The police stated that the detainee was a 'notorious goonda' in the district and a threat to the society at large. Aggrieved by the order of his detention dated June 20, 2024, Rajesh's wife filed a writ petition before the Kerala High Court assailing the order and praying for a writ of habeas corpus to the state against the 'illegal' detention of her husband. The high court on September 4 last year affirmed the order of preventive detention. Aggrieved by the order, the detainee's wife moved the top court challenging the decision. On December 10, 2024, the top court ordered the detainee to be released as his maximum period of detention under the Act was over. PTI MNL ARI This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Preventive detention extraordinary power of state that must be used sparingly: SC
New Delhi: Preventive detention is an extraordinary power in the hands of the state that must be used sparingly, said the Supreme Court as it set aside an order to detain a man indulging in money lending in Kerala . A bench of justices Sanjay Karol and Manmohan said the circumstances pointed out in the order by the detaining authority may be ground enough for the state to approach the competent courts for cancellation of bail in cases against him, but it cannot be said that the same warranted his preventive detention. "Therefore, the order of detention dated June 20, 2024, and the impugned judgment dated September 4, 2024, passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam are hereby set aside. In the attending facts and circumstances of this case, the appeal is allowed," the bench said in its order passed on Friday. Noting that the power of preventive detention finds recognition in the Constitution under Article 22(3)(b), the bench said, "The provision for preventive detention is an extraordinary power in the hands of the state that must be used sparingly. It curtails the liberty of an individual in anticipation of the commission of further offence(s), and therefore, must not be used in the ordinary course of nature." The bench said the contention of the detaining authority that the detainee, Rajesh, who used to run a private financing company called 'Rithika Finance', was violating the conditions of bail imposed upon him in the cases that have been considered for passing the order of detention. Live Events It said that pertinently, no application has been filed by the respondent in any of the four cases, alleging violation of such conditions, if any, and moreover, have not even been spelt out during the hearing of the case filed by his wife against the Kerala High Court order, which affirmed the preventive detention order of the Palakkad district magistrate. "Keeping in view the above expositions of law, we have no doubt that the order of detention cannot be sustained. The circumstances pointed out in the order by the detaining authority may be ground enough for the state to approach the competent courts for cancellation of bail, but it cannot be said that the same warranted his preventive detention. "We clarify that if such an application for cancellation of the detainee's bail is made by the respondent - state, the same must be decided uninfluenced by the observations made hereinabove," the bench noted. It referred to the provisions of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007, and said that the object of the statute was to provide for effective prevention of certain anti-social activities in the state. The bench said Section 2(j) of the state law defines 'goonda' as a person who indulges in activities that are harmful to the maintenance of public order, either directly or indirectly, and includes persons who are bootleggers, counterfeiters, drug offenders, and loan sharks, among others. The bench also said that under Section 3 of the Act, the district magistrate so authorised or the government may pass an order directing detention of a "known goonda" to prevent commission of antisocial activities within the state of Kerala. "Coming to the attending facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that the exercise of power under Section 3 of the Act was not justified in law," the top court said, as it noted four cases lodged under the Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958, cited by the police for recommending preventive detention to the district magistrate. The police stated that the detainee was a "notorious goonda" in the district and a threat to the society at large. Aggrieved by the order of his detention dated June 20, 2024, Rajesh's wife filed a writ petition before the Kerala High Court assailing the order and praying for a writ of habeas corpus to the state against the "illegal" detention of her husband. The high court on September 4 last year affirmed the order of preventive detention. Aggrieved by the order, the detainee's wife moved the top court challenging the decision. On December 10, 2024, the top court ordered the detainee to be released as his maximum period of detention under the Act was over. Economic Times WhatsApp channel )
Hans India
an hour ago
- Hans India
'Baseless': EC insiders dismiss Rahul's claim on Maharashtra poll rigging
New Delhi: The political storm stirred by Congress MP and Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi over alleged irregularities in Maharashtra electoral rolls was dismissed as 'baseless' by an Election Commission source on Saturday. 'The Maharashtra electoral roll revision process was undertaken under the full glare of 1,03,727 Booth Level Agents appointed by the political parties, including 27,099 BLAs by the Indian National Congress (INC) themselves,' said an official source, claiming that there was no basis for the Congress leader to insinuate vitiation of the electoral process. According to the Election Commission's elaborate procedure on the updating of electoral rolls, any deletion and addition is done strictly as per the given framework under Article 324 of the Constitution and the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the Registration of the Electors Rules, 1960 and the extant instructions issued by the Commission from time to time Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, in an article published in a national daily, alleged "match-fixing" by the BJP in the Maharashtra Assembly elections. His article ignited a political controversy, with opposition parties claiming that it exposes the alleged scale of electoral manipulation in the 2024 Maharashtra Assembly elections and points to the Election Commission's "silence" on critical questions raised by the opposition alliance. Election Commission sources, however, disagreed with Rahul Gandhi's claim and questioned why no appeals were filed in case the allegations about manipulation carried any weight. After the finalisation of these electoral rolls during the Maharashtra elections, out of 9,77,90,752 electors, only 89 appeals were filed before the first appellate authority (District Magistrate) under Section 24(A) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, said a source. Only one appeal was preferred before the second appellate authority (Chief Electoral Officer) under Section 24(B) of the same Act, he said. To counter Rahul Gandhi's attack on alleged election rigging, BJP leader Amit Malviya on Saturday posted on social media a news clip headlined: 'Misleading', 'baseless', says EC, rejects Congress' claims on Maharashtra voter lists. The EC said there was no irregular pattern in voter deletions in the state and rule-based process was followed with transparency in preparation of the electoral rolls, according to the clip.
