Must Read

M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb, 1964

Image
M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb, (1964) 6 SCR 642, 651 This case interpretation/case summary is written by Ms. Swati Sharma a student at the Faculty of Law (Delhi University). If you also want to publish your articles or case interpretations/summaries, send your work to  niyamskanoon09@gmail.com . Case Details PETITIONER:  MRS. M. N. CLUBWALA AND ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: FIDA HUSSAIN SAHEB AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/02/1964 BENCH: MUDHOLKAR, J.R. SUBBARAO, K. CITATION: 1965 AIR 610 1964 SCR (6) 642 Introduction   The case of M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb (1964) under the Delhi Rent Control Act is a landmark judgment that clarifies the distinction between a lease and a license and the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller. The primary issue in this case was whether the agreements between the landlord (M.N. Clubwala) and the shopkeepers (Fida Hussain Saheb) created a lease or a license.  Facts of the Case M.N. Clubwala (Landlord) used his building as market by

The Food Corporation of India Staff Union v. Food Corporation of India & Ors, AIR 1995 SC 1344.

The Food Corporation of India Staff Union v. Food Corporation of India & Ors, 1995 ||Case Summary 



Introduction 

In the present appeal, the Supreme Court of India laid down some norms and procedures to be followed to get the correct results by the "Secret Ballot System" which is the method to examine which is the more powerful Union.

Facts 

There were two registered Trade Unions in an Industry consequently, a situation arose before the employers to understand which was an powerful union or with whom they should bargain regarding terms, conditions etc. As a result, In the present appeal, the Supreme Court of India laid down the procedure be executed to get the correct results by the Secret Ballot System. 

Issue 

  1. What are the guidelines which laid down by the Court in the present appeal?

Supreme Court Order

The Court while understanding the importance of this issue, took opinions from other Trade Unions or Organizations before passing the following guidelines:-
  1. The CLC shall fix the month of the election while the date of the election shall be fixed by the Returning Officer.
  2. The Returning Officer shall notify the election schedule after the consultation with the FCI.
  3. The Returning Officer shall conduct the election with the help of the FCI. 
  4. The Polling assistants may be selected by the Returning Officer among the FCI members.
  5. The Court said the strength of all eligible unions will be decided by the "Secret Ballot System" under the supervision of the Chief Labour Commissioner (CLC).
  6. The Returning Officer shall inform FCI to furnish the list of all the employees who work in the category of III and IV under the FCI (Staff) Regulations Act, 1971.
  7. The Trade Union, which is registered under the Act for one year, is eligible to participate in the election.
  8. The FCI shall display the voters list on the notice board and other visible places so that the person who gets any issues can raise them to the Returning Officer within the stipulated time. 
  9. The language of the ballot paper would be Hindi, English and the concerned regional language. 
  10. The signature of the workman or employee shall be obtained on the counterfoil of the ballot paper to ensure that the ballot paper has been put inside the box. 
  11. After polling, the ballot box will be opened and counted by the Returning Officer before the representative of each of the Union. 
  12. After declaring the poll results, the Returning Officer will send a report of his findings to the CLC. 
  13.  The contesting Union would have the power to challenge the election result. Before the Returning Officer, the objections can only be raised after the election is over. The Objection shall be heard by CLC and disposed of within 30 days. The decision of CLC shall be final but subject to challenge before a competent court. 
  14. The Court directed the CLC and the FCI to hold the elections as per the procedure mentioned in this order.

Comments

Popular Post

Ashbury Railway Carriage and Iron Co. Ltd. v. Riche (1875)

Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353